# Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule



## Saufsoldat (Jul 2, 2012)

> A state court in Cologne has caused uproar among Jews and Muslims by criminalizing circumcision. But the legal row is far from over.
> 
> Circumcision is an ancient religious ritual. In Judaism it is meant to take place eight days after birth and is said to seal the "covenant with God." It is also a religious duty among Muslims, and is either carried out on babies, or later in childhood - often as part of a large family celebration.
> 
> ...





I gotta say, Germany is the last place I expected to do this. Mad props to the brave judge who put the rights of children before superstitious barbarism.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 2, 2012)

Agreed. Never been cut and proud of it.


----------



## WT (Jul 2, 2012)

The way I see it - if its legalized, safe measures can be adopted which would result in minimal "bodily harm". However, if its illegal, people will of course break the law and may even do it themselves which will be far worse.

Of course, its always unreasonable to assume that people would have common sense.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 2, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> The way I see it - if its legalized, safe measures can be adopted which would result in minimal "bodily harm". However, if its illegal, people will of course break the law and may even do it themselves which will be far worse.
> 
> Of course, its always unreasonable to assume that people would have common sense.



So because some people will maim their children anyway, we should provide them with the proper means to maim their children? From where do you get this perversion of common sense?


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jul 2, 2012)

Circumcision is grievous for jews too. They'd rather sew more on top than give away.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 2, 2012)

I got to use that twice today. 

But seriously, my BS in Bio thesis was on routine infant circumcision. Needless to say, it's a fucking crime against humanity.


----------



## WT (Jul 2, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So because some people will maim their children anyway, we should provide them with the proper means to maim their children? From where do you get this perversion of common sense?



Not some, a lot. 

If its legally done under medical conditions by a specialized doctor with specialized equipment - that's far better than it being done by an unemployed dad using a dirty knife. 

But of course, that's too much for you to comprehend.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 2, 2012)

There are medical conditions that make circumcision the best treatment option? 

Do tell.  
I have yet to see a medical organization except WHO say circumcision had any medical benefits. Too bad WHO's decision on the topic is a political move and not a scientific one.


----------



## WT (Jul 2, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> There are medical conditions that make circumcision the best treatment option?
> 
> Do tell.



I'm not sure what you're trying to ask but its almost midnight where I am and my English gets kinda rusty at this time. I was trying to say that if its done by a doctor, then thats better than it being done by someone else. 

Anyway, female circumcision should of course be banned.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 2, 2012)

There are some case, circumcision is necessary for the good development of the penis.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 2, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Not some, a lot.
> 
> If its legally done under medical conditions by a specialized doctor with specialized equipment - that's far better than it being done by an unemployed dad using a dirty knife.
> 
> But of course, that's too much for you to comprehend.



So by your logic, we should perform female circumcision in hospitals because people are just gonna do it anyway, amirite?

Get your head out of your ass.


If the father does it with a rusty knife, he'll be charged with grievous bodily harm as well and the child can count itself lucky that it doesn't have to be raised by such a despicable fuck who values his superstition more than his child's life.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 2, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> The way I see it - if its legalized, safe measures can be adopted which would result in minimal "bodily harm". However, if its illegal, people will of course break the law and may even do it themselves which will be far worse.
> 
> Of course, its always unreasonable to assume that people would have common sense.





White Tiger said:


> Not some, a lot.
> 
> If its legally done under medical conditions by a specialized doctor with specialized equipment - that's far better than it being done by an unemployed dad using a dirty knife.
> 
> But of course, that's too much for you to comprehend.





White Tiger said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to ask but its almost midnight where I am and my English gets kinda rusty at this time. I was trying to say that if its done by a doctor, then thats better than it being done by someone else.
> 
> Anyway, female circumcision should of course be banned.


The problem with that is the fact that this is a medical based procedure rather than a product that a grown adult usually can decide of their own will to partake in.

The general counter argument is that it's kind of an issue to suggest that people can do just about anything to their children just because they believe it to be so.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 2, 2012)

Yeah I don't remember how old I was but my Mum was bitching about my Dad talking about how she wanted to give me some name, wanted to have me circumcised yada yada and my bad basically put his foot down and I said ''Good''. 

Fucking maim a human being without their consent.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Jul 2, 2012)

I read somewhere where it described a few infections in the male genitalia I thought as a male I never and could never have. It was attempting to give a few alternatives to circumcision and also ways to prevent infections if you have foreskin.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> By pulling back the uncircumcised foreskin and cleaning carefully, a man can reduce the formation of smegma, a cottage cheese-like substance that can lead to a foul odor and infection.



Reading that I became a bit more grateful that my parents circumcised me as a kid.


----------



## Island (Jul 2, 2012)

Wait, what? I thought all males got circumcised. I know I am. :/


----------



## Gunners (Jul 2, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So by your logic, we should perform female circumcision in hospitals because people are just gonna do it anyway, amirite?
> 
> Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> ...


You're a weird individual, 9 times out of ten you say something sensible then 1 times out of 10 you say something incredibly stupid. It's like there is no middle ground. 

I think female circumcision is a little bit different to male circumcision in that female circumcision prevents the individual feeling pleasure from sex. That being said I could be wrong, haven't exactly spoken to a circumcised female to find out if they have a problem feeling pleasure from sex.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 2, 2012)

This is good for 3rd world muslim countries' economies , circumcision Tourism would surely generate more wealth now


----------



## Linkdarkside (Jul 2, 2012)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> There are so case, circumcision is necessary for the good development of the penis.


um no ,i have my fore skin and i am happy whit it,parent should not have the right
to do something like this.

if a baby grow up and what to do it then it his decision.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 2, 2012)

Linkdarkside said:


> um no ,i have my fore skin and i am happy whit it,parent should not have the right
> to do something like this.
> 
> if a baby grow up and what to do it then it his decision.



I mean necessary in few case. Sometimes the fore skin is too small for the penis and must be removed for a better development.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 2, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> I read somewhere where it described a few infections in the male genitalia I thought as a male I never and could never have. It was attempting to give a few alternatives to circumcision and also ways to prevent infections if you have foreskin.
> 
> 
> 
> Reading that I became a bit more grateful that my parents circumcised me as a kid.



Smegma is actually like a powder, only cut males would call it a "cheese." Smegma also only smells if you don't wash for DAYS, and then only if you pull your skin back. Not to mention, smegma is really good at killing yeast, bacteria, and viruses. It's not the smegma that causes an infection, it's the moisture. The moisture under the foreskin keeps the skin supple, soft, and thin to maximize pleasure. Moisture also gives bacteria and yeast a place to grow. Also, infection under the foreskin typically only occurs when an individual has another major infection that the body is pre-occupied with. And should I point out that smegma doesn't really form until puberty? Hence why the American Pediatric Association tells parents not to force boys to wash under their foreskin. The penis isn't done developing until ~8 years of age, and removing the foreskin and/or retracting before that can damage the penis that is still developing. Typically, the foreskin orifice widens when development is done, this also is accelerated when the male starts to masturbate. 

Apart from WHO, no medical organization in the world cites circumcision as a procedure that needs to be done. There's always other alternatives.
Phimosis? Masturbate or get a cream or get a bulb pump.
Cancer? Just remove the tumor without everything else.
Infection? Take antibiotics/antifungal or just bathe once in awhile.

In the medical world, we liken the foreskin to the eyelid. They both have the same functions except the foreskin houses all of the nerves that sense only pleasure while the eyelids have none of these. Circumcision makes as much sense as removing someone's eyelids.

Yet again, when all the medical organizations in the world, except the one run by politics, says that it's unnessacary and many of them say it's "barbaric", or "radical" then you're pretty much being an asshole for spreading lies that say otherwise. Circumcision came around to try to stop children from masturbating. You can thank Mr. Kellogg for it in the UK, Canada, and US.


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

when I was 4 I peed blood and my urinary track started to close


----------



## Nemo (Jul 2, 2012)

hammer said:


> when I was 4 I peed blood and my urinary track started to close



Okay.


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

Ninja Cheetos said:


> Okay.



im not kidding


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 2, 2012)

circumcision for babies because of potential infection, is like removing a babies toe nails because of the potential for ingrown toe nails.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Jul 2, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Smegma is actually like a powder, only cut males would call it a "cheese."



Lets be reasonable. This isn't about who has the better penis. I really doubt that there are 'cut' males out there who covet an uncircumcised penis enough to disparage uncircumcised males.



Toroxus said:


> Smegma also only smells if you don't wash for DAYS, and then only if you pull your skin back. Not to mention, smegma is really good at killing yeast, bacteria, and viruses. It's not the smegma that causes an infection, it's the moisture. The moisture under the foreskin keeps the skin supple, soft, and thin to maximize pleasure. Moisture also gives bacteria and yeast a place to grow. Also, infection under the foreskin typically only occurs when an individual has another major infection that the body is pre-occupied with. And should I point out that smegma doesn't really form until puberty?



Ew.



Toroxus said:


> Apart from WHO, no medical organization in the world cites circumcision as a procedure that needs to be done. There's always other alternatives.
> Phimosis? Masturbate or get a cream or get a bulb pump.
> Cancer? Just remove the tumor without everything else.
> Infection? Take antibiotics/antifungal or just bathe once in awhile.



There are alternatives for everything, but circumcision is a relatively more practical solution than a lifetime of infections, gross diseases and active maintenance.



Toroxus said:


> In the medical world, we liken the foreskin to the eyelid. They both have the same functions except the foreskin houses all of the nerves that sense only pleasure while the eyelids have none of these. *Circumcision makes as much sense as removing someone's eyelids.*



Really? Are you sure that you're not maybe just stretching it a little to far there?

I read over a few medical journals and I'm going to mention a few things I found.


The National Health and Social Life Survey of 1,410 men in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions.

 It was also discovered that their female partners were more pleased with the esthetics of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. 

In a survey of college women 87% expressed preference for pictures of circumcised over uncircumcised penises. 

Besides that I can list my own advantages.


Simplified Hygiene.
Cultural and religious preference.
Woman like it better for oral sex and increased staying power.
Reduce the risk of penile cancer.
Reduce the risk of urinary tract infections and consequent renal complications.
Provide greater protection against sexually transmitted diseases.
Eliminate the risk of phimosis.
Reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.
Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Anyway, I wont put on my amateur medical science hat on for this round. But I will say that I personally think that a circumcised penis carries its advantages.

I have heard a few stories involved with having an uncircumcised penis. From infections, to foul smell, to Phimosis and uncomfortable trips to the hospital. Things I have never had to deal with. And I am relieved and happy about that. What wrong with that?

I am not saying that your argument that circumcision is unnecessary is invalid. Maybe it is. It seems to be more of a cosmetic procedure and a positive bodily augmentation than anything.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 2, 2012)

sadated_peon said:


> circumcision for babies because of potential infection, is like removing a babies toe nails because of the potential for ingrown toe nails.



I had both of these procedures done to me as a lad. I was the ultimate risk of infection 

Anyway I'm fairly indifferent to circumcision. Had it done to me obviously but I don't care if I didn't have it. My pee pee is not much different except there's less work peeing.


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

I wish I was circumcised at birth


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

Megaharrison said:


> I had both of these procedures done to me as a lad. I was the ultimate risk of infection



the infection fucking hurts


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 2, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> Lets be reasonable. This isn't about who has the better penis. I really doubt that there are 'cut' males out there who covet an uncircumcised penis enough to disparage uncircumcised males.


They are out there.



> There are alternatives for everything, but circumcision is a relatively more practical solution than a lifetime of infections, gross diseases and active maintenance.


It's not practical whatsoever to circumcise. There is no "life time infections" as someone else pointed out, removing a foreskin because of a risk of infection is like removing toenails so they don't become ingrown. 99.999999999999% of normal males don't have a problem with their foreskin, and those that do don't need circumcision. 





> Really? Are you sure that you're not maybe just stretching it a little to far there?


Nope, they have the same function and roughly the same tissue design.



> I read over a few medical journals and I'm going to mention a few things I found.
> 
> 
> The National Health and Social Life Survey of 1,410 men in the USA found that uncircumcised men were more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions.




Citation please.



> [*] It was also discovered that their female partners were more pleased with the esthetics of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one.
> 
> [*]In a survey of college women 87% expressed preference for pictures of circumcised over uncircumcised penises.
> 
> [*]Most casting directors in the porn industry require a circumcised penis as a qualification.




These are not scientific. In the rest of the world besides America, the normal penis is favored. 



> But I will say that I personally think that a circumcised penis carries its advantages.


That's great that you personally think that. But science has concluded otherwise.



> I have heard a few stories involved with having an uncircumcised penis. From infections, to foul smell, to Phimosis and uncomfortable trips to the hospital. Things I have never had to deal with. And I am relieved and happy about that. What wrong with that?


The same can be said about tonsils or toenails. There are horror stories. Like I said before, don't want infections and a bad smell? Take a bath once a week. Phimosis is so rare in mature males and very often not needed to be treated. If it is needed to be treated, there are lotions and even little balloons that permanently eliminate the problem without destroying a healthy organ that protects the glans whilst housing all the pleasure-only sensing nerves.

Most people are also relieved and happy that they've never had problem with their penis. Most of those people are normal males. Humans seem to have done fine with foreskins since all mammals have them, and many nations that once routinely circumcised have now made it against the law. 
In America, the rate of circumcision has dropped to ~33%, with almost all of the being in the Southeast. It's a dying practice because people are learning that it's fucking insane.


----------



## Spock (Jul 2, 2012)

I hate any topics that have to do with dicks. Yuck.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 2, 2012)

As someone who was circumcised as an infant, I agree with this move. Seeing as how it's a ban on forcing circumcision on adolescents and not circumcision as a whole, I don't see the problem.  This could potentially mean parents taking matters into their own hands with religious doctors volunteering/black marketing the service, which would raise some concerns.  That said, I don't find it to be reason enough to leave things be.  The decision was pretty straight forward.  It's an unconsented activity that can cause harm to otherwise healthy babies, therefore it shouldn't be allowed to be forced upon.


----------



## cnorwood (Jul 2, 2012)

Do people really care that much about their foreskin? I got circumcised when i was a baby and I literally couldn't give two shits. The only advantage I could see to having foreskin is jacking off might feel better.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 2, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> I got to use that twice today.
> 
> But seriously, my BS in Bio thesis was on routine infant circumcision. Needless to say, it's a fucking crime against humanity.



hardly. no one remembers it, there's no lasting harm at all.


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

the forskin makes you more sensitive which makes me assume you finish faster.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> hardly. no one remembers it, there's no lasting harm at all.



Doctors say differently. Including the doctors in the op. Please cite your source.


----------



## cnorwood (Jul 2, 2012)

hammer said:


> the forskin makes you more sensitive which makes me assume you finish faster.



so then its a negative.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 2, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Doctors say differently. Including the doctors in the op. Please cite your source.


what kind of stupid thing to say is that, you remember anything from when you were a baby? you think 80% of american guys or whatever are traumatized? no of course not.


----------



## hammer (Jul 2, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> what kind of stupid thing to say is that, you remember anything from when you were a baby? you think 80% of american guys or whatever are traumatized? no of course not.



I was old enough to remember it getting cut off, my mom had no plan yo cut it, but I started to pee blood like a fat women with a heavy flow period, dont get me started.


----------



## eHav (Jul 2, 2012)

circumcision is necessary in some cases unless you want to go through some problems with your penis. the skin can actually be too small to let them clean themselves properly etc.

me? i got a foreskin, it works perfectly. i only have one fear related to my dick. the "Frenulum of prepuce of penis" breaking. i know about some cases where it happened, and it sucks ass.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

hammer said:


> I was old enough to remember it getting cut off, my mom had no plan yo cut it, but I started to pee blood like a fat women with a heavy flow period, dont get me started.



well that's kind of a different case


----------



## hammer (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> well that's kind of a different case



how so? if it was cut at birth instead of"letting me decide" I would not have to go threw the worst fucking pain in my life.  I had to pee in the fucking bathtub afterwords


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Gunners said:


> You're a weird individual, 9 times out of ten you say something sensible then 1 times out of 10 you say something incredibly stupid. It's like there is no middle ground.
> 
> I think female circumcision is a little bit different to male circumcision in that female circumcision prevents the individual feeling pleasure from sex. That being said I could be wrong, haven't exactly spoken to a circumcised female to find out if they have a problem feeling pleasure from sex.



White Tiger's argument had nothing to do with pleasure, it was based solely on "if you don't do it in the hospital, they'll do it in less safe conditions" which could be applied to female circumcision just as easily, so the differences between the two do not matter in the least.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

hammer said:


> how so? if it was cut at birth instead of"letting me decide" I would not have to go threw the worst fucking pain in my life.  I had to pee in the fucking bathtub afterwords



yeah. thats the difference. my point was its hardly harmful when its done to newborns


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> White Tiger's argument had nothing to do with pleasure, it was based solely on "if you don't do it in the hospital, they'll do it in less safe conditions" which could be applied to female circumcision just as easily, so the differences between the two do not matter in the least.



the argument you derided is also a common pro-abortion argument, that women will get them anyway but not nearly as safely.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 3, 2012)

I say good for these judges.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> the argument you derided is also a common pro-abortion argument, that women will get them anyway but not nearly as safely.



And then there's the whole deciding what happens to your own body. Abortion opponents are against it, while infant circumcision opponents are for it.

The only thing White Tiger derides his arguments from are his medieval superstitions.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> And then there's the whole deciding what happens to your own body. Abortion opponents are against it, while infant circumcision opponents are for it.
> 
> The only thing White Tiger derides his arguments from are his medieval superstitions.



or just preference. its common in the US even though there's no religious reason for it with christians. talk about making a big deal out of nothing


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> or just preference. its common in the US even though there's no religious reason for it with christians.



Then there should be even less reason to maim infants.



> talk about making a big deal out of nothing



Right, because cutting off a part of someone's body without their consent is "nothing".


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

it really is


----------



## hammer (Jul 3, 2012)

it's only skin


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> it really is



So if someone would surgically remove your toenails without your consent, you'd be fine with that?



hammer said:


> it's only skin



So why remove it without someone's consent? If it's "only" skin, then you could just wait until the person can make their own decisions instead of forcing a permanent change upon their body.


----------



## hammer (Jul 3, 2012)

so I wont have to worry about my son to go threw what I went threw?


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

sauf, people are typically newborns when theyre circumcised. you never miss it. without a doubt better to have it done as a baby than to choose to do it when you're older


----------



## impersonal (Jul 3, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> There are alternatives for everything, but circumcision is a relatively more practical solution than *a lifetime of infections, gross diseases and active maintenance.*


Are you kidding me? 


Ichi Sagato said:


> Really? Are you sure that you're not maybe just stretching it a little to far there?


who is stretching things here exactly?


Ichi Sagato said:


> I read over a few medical journals and I'm going to mention a few things I found.


You're so jealous of my penis that you read medical journals about it? ...





			
				Gunners said:
			
		

> I think female circumcision is a little bit different to male circumcision in that female circumcision prevents the individual feeling pleasure from sex.


To be fair, this is also true of male circumcision.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

hammer said:


> so I wont have to worry about my son to go threw what I went threw?





Petes12 said:


> sauf, people are typically newborns when theyre circumcised. you never miss it. without a doubt better to have it done as a baby than to choose to do it when you're older



People are typically newborns when they get urinary tract infections, too.

I was 4 when I was circumcised, peeing was incredibly painful for over a week afterwards.

And I cannot think of a single medical procedure that is better when done without the consent of the patient (or rather victim in this case, since we're talking about perfectly healthy children).

And who the fuck are you to say that someone cannot miss something you want to deprive them of? Should we let parents cut off their childrens' little toes next? They're vestigial, they're not going to miss them, right?


----------



## hammer (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> People are typically newborns when they get urinary tract infections, too.
> 
> I was 4 when I was circumcised, peeing was incredibly painful for over a week afterwards.
> 
> ...



I was not a fucking new born I was old enough to remember, when I had to pee, it was all fucking blood,


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Jul 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> who is stretching things here exactly?
> 
> ...



Toroxus deserves a reply from me, and I'll get to in time. But I don't hold discussions with trolls. Get bent.


----------



## horsdhaleine (Jul 3, 2012)

Copy pasta from a women's magazine:



> A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that circumcised men have lower risk of contracting HPV, and therefore monogamous women who are in a relationship with circumcised men may have lower risk of HPV infection and cervical cancer than women whose partners are uncircumcised. (Certain strains of HPV have been linke to cervical cancer.)



In my country, boys are circumcised when they are around 9-11 years old to make sure the foreskin won't grow again. At least that's how people see it here. Not backed up by research lol



> Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule



Germans can keep penile preference to themselves.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 3, 2012)

*Quick search*

A difference of 3% for HPV, less than 10% for high-risk HPV, and no difference at all for syphilis... for an experiment carried out in Uganda of all places. Correlation does no equate to causation. You can't even suggest that sugar is the simple causation of diabetes and obesity in industrialized nations even though such economies correlate with a higher consumption of sugar and growing rates of obesity.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jul 3, 2012)

lol, fuck that shit.

I'm cut. And proud of it. And i'm gonna cut my sons too.

Uncut penis... 

Plus the risks for diseases (for the uncut) are higher and shit. Smegma


----------



## Taco (Jul 3, 2012)

Every body part is there for a reason.

Rationalizing circumcision in this day and age (other than "my religion told me to" or a severe medical issue that requires it) is ridiculous.

Pull the foreskin back and clean the dick. There. No smegma, no odor, no infections. Circumcision just takes away feeling from the head of the penis. And it's not right to do that to a newborn fucking baby without giving them the choice.

It's unfortunate that women prefer maimed penises simply because that's the only type of penis they've seen. Or because it looks better. Hey ladies, just a tip: when you're seeing a guy's dick in person, chances are it's going to be erect and it's going to look similar to every other dick in the world.


----------



## Revolution (Jul 3, 2012)

It's not supersticous.  It's medical.  Several countries in Central Africa circumsizes for the sake of SDT protection.  Yes, it is not a sheild, but it greatly reduces the chance of getting HIV/AIDS or other epidemics no one wants.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 3, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> It's not supersticous.  It's medical.  Several countries in Central Africa circumsizes for the sake of SDT protection.  Yes, it is not a sheild, but it greatly reduces the chance of getting HIV/AIDS or other epidemics no one wants.



And once again, it's not significant enough to suggest it's a direct causation but rather a correlation at best with numerous other factors affecting the rate in having STDs. It's still not really necessary. It's definitely superstitious when the context of what's being discussed in this thread is a matter of religion rather than a primary focus based on biology alone.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 3, 2012)

Ichi Sagato said:


> Toroxus deserves a reply from me, and I'll get to in time. But I don't hold discussions with trolls. Get bent.



I'm just pointing out that your posts reeks of ignorance and inability to look at the matter objectively, to the point where jokes are the only appropriate answers. I suggest you read my post again and take the hint.

Regarding the topic of circumcision, and looking at it seriously: in the USA, circumcision is originally a means to prevent masturbation. Now people are desperately trying to rationalize it as something else against all evidence (e.g. Sarahmint), mentioning issues of hygiene which are not significant factors in the matter.


----------



## FireEel (Jul 3, 2012)

You people treat it like its castration.

It's just circumcision. Had it done to me when I was a kid. I don't care at all now.

My body is not harmed, I am not disabled or in any sort of disadvantage. Don't see why theres so much fear and hatred regarding circumcised penises.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 3, 2012)

slicing off your foreskin protects you from hiv-> Whut?


----------



## Roman (Jul 3, 2012)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> There are some case, circumcision is necessary for the good development of the penis.



Exactly.



Toroxus said:


> Phimosis? Masturbate or get a cream or get a bulb pump.



Have you ever had Phimosis in the first place? Because those suggestions won't work and doesn't get rid of the problem permanently. Trust me.

Circumcision is sometimes necessary if someone is under a medical condition. I agree that circumcision shouldn't be done to a baby who's to old to decide for themselves what they want to do with their body. This represents the religious dogma of enforcing a religion on a child before he's old enough to understand and explore other possibilities. I'm glad Germany is doing this tbh, but I'm just wondering if it's illegal no matter what your age or simply illegal for parents to have their children circumcised if they're below a certain age?


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 3, 2012)

Sarahmint said:


> It's not supersticous.  It's medical.  Several countries in Central Africa circumsizes for the sake of SDT protection.  Yes, it is not a sheild, but it greatly reduces the chance of getting HIV/AIDS or other epidemics no one wants.


These "medical reasons" are:
- heavily disputed in the medical community
- very minor ("greatly reduces" is a load of bullshit)
- not relevant for a child who still has 10 years before puberty



FireEel said:


> You people treat it like its castration.
> 
> It's just circumcision. Had it done to me when I was a kid. I don't care at all now.
> 
> My body is not harmed, I am not disabled or in any sort of disadvantage. Don't see why theres so much fear and hatred regarding circumcised penises.


You want to know something funny? Victims of female circumcision often say the exact same thing that you just did. After all, it's just circumcision.



Freedan said:


> Have you ever had Phimosis in the first place? Because those suggestions won't work. Trust me.



I've had phimosis and solved it in two weeks with modified masturbation technique (and lots of porn). So now, he shouldn't trust you.

Very rarely will circumcision be needed to treat phimosis. If masturbation and cream fail you, there are less invasive surgeries to try first.


----------



## SwordKing (Jul 3, 2012)




----------



## hammer (Jul 3, 2012)

your name, this thread.

lmao


----------



## Synn (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm against circumcision, unless strictly necessary.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> People are typically newborns when they get urinary tract infections, too.
> 
> I was 4 when I was circumcised, peeing was incredibly painful for over a week afterwards.
> 
> ...



if you cant ever remember a time without them...

seriously, you people are weird


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Okay, so I take it all of you circumcised people are so fucking happy about your parents having cosmetic surgery performed on you as an infant. That's great and all, but what gives you the right to decide this for another human being?

Why can we not wait until the people are old enough to actually give consent? All this rationalizing about "it's just skin, I never missed it, I'm not weird, everyone else is, blah blah" does not even begin to form a coherent argument for why it should be done to people over a decade before they're even old enough to understand what was done to them. 

Let informed adults consent to circumcision as much as they like, but why force cosmetic surgery on infants?


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

cus no one wants to get that surgery as an adult. 

sorry i just don't see what the big deal is. spankings are apparently traumatizing, which puts them well above this in the 'stuff we should stop' list


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Okay, so I take it all of you circumcised people are so fucking happy about your parents having cosmetic surgery performed on you as an infant. That's great and all, but what gives you the right to decide this for another human being?
> 
> Why can we not wait until the people are old enough to actually give consent? All this rationalizing about "it's just skin, I never missed it, I'm not weird, everyone else is, blah blah" does not even begin to form a coherent argument for why it should be done to people over a decade before they're even old enough to understand what was done to them.
> 
> Let informed adults consent to circumcision as much as they like, but why force cosmetic surgery on infants?



We just don't care, Sauf.  Please, spare us the emotional appeal if we really don't care.  I won't hate my parents and there's not a God damn thing you'll preach that'll convince me otherwise.  There are bigger things to reflect on now than our missing skin flap like...getting a job, eating, exercise, women, etc.


----------



## Lord Genome (Jul 3, 2012)

I really don't see the big deal, as a guy anyway. I don't remember when I was cut, shit I thought they all looked like that till I was 15 probably

Never caused me problems, all four of my brothers are cut to, never had problems


----------



## baconbits (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Okay, so I take it all of you circumcised people are so fucking happy about your parents having cosmetic surgery performed on you as an infant. That's great and all, but what gives you the right to decide this for another human being?



Typically we've decided that parents have the right to decide things for their children.  Parents choose schools, religion and the training of their child.  I wonder logically how you would answer those parents who get their children's ears pierced at a young age.



Saufsoldat said:


> Why can we not wait until the people are old enough to actually give consent?



Because their religious values implore them to do this at a young age.  Plus the longer you wait the more painful it is.



Saufsoldat said:


> All this rationalizing about "it's just skin, I never missed it, I'm not weird, everyone else is, blah blah" does not even begin to form a coherent argument for why it should be done to people over a decade before they're even old enough to understand what was done to them.
> 
> Let informed adults consent to circumcision as much as they like, but why force cosmetic surgery on infants?



If it is simply cosmetic there is really no reason you ought to object to it.  One could argue that ear piercings and hair styles are also cosmetic changes that could have an influence on the child.  The question should be does the parent have the right to decide things for the child?


----------



## Mijuu (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So because some people will maim their children anyway, we should provide them with the proper means to maim their children? From where do you get this perversion of common sense?



I dont know.

I was circumcised, I certainly never felt maimed.

Eh, whatever this "sense" is, it certainly isnt common be that good or ill.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm cut, and I like it. I don't remember my circumcision at all. 

But I guess the Germans can do what they want? But I don't see the big deal either way. 

Unless you're talking about Female circumcision. That is all kinds of wrong.


----------



## MidnightToker426 (Jul 3, 2012)

Can we just ban threads relating to penises? 

There is just so much wank, no pun intended.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

Hearing people defend circumcision when every medical association is against it sickens me. Let's me just take 1 second to obliterate this list:



> • Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [Ohjimi et al., 1995].


99.9% of all males don't have phimosis when they start puberty. Nor is phimosis actually a "problem". The AAP cited plenty of home methods to treat it such as masturbation and lotions. The AAFP in 2007 quote, "As such, it’s not uncommon for no treatment to be prescribed [for phimosis]. "



> • Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [Escala & Rickwood, 1989; Fakjian et al., 1990; Edwards, 1996].


Never heard of this one, but normal glans are very sensitive to stimulation, hence why they are covered by the foreskin. When you retract or remove the foreskin, the glans get irritated from being dried out in the air or rubbing against rough surfaces like clothing or diapers. The glans become inflamed from this. However, in circumcised people, the constant dryness and roughness causes the skin to harden and keratenize to compensate in the exact same process as your skin hardens on your hands and feet when they are constantly abrassed. Also, all this rubbing causes many shallow nerves in the glans to die, eliminating the discomfort of this.



> • Reduced urinary tract infections.


The AMA, AAP, and BMA have all commented on this and say there's no difference in the rate of UTIs and that circumcision almost always leads to a UTI immediately after according to the IMA. And the American Academy of Pediatrics has gone so far as to say that the studies suggesting circumcision reduces UTI rates are "methodologically flawed… [and] that no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from them.” 



> • Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.


I'd love a source for this, because the BMA slammed this topic when they flopped on the issue when they noted that circumcision, on average, reduces the amount of skin on the penis by ~60% and that causes circumcised men to usually have a penis that's arced too much in the ventral way or in another way.



> • Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, genital herpes, syphilis and other micro-organisms in men and their partner(s).


All these studies were done by the same Christian group that purposefully fucked up their results to "show" that circumcision was good in terms of STDs. The International Journal of STD & AIDs states, “Recommending routine circumcision… to prevent HIV… is scientifically unfounded.” As for the cervical cancer thing, the AAFP also went on to say that those studies are "inconclusive and not regarded as factual."



> • Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.


First, Penile cancer is one the rarest cancers in the world and one of the most treatable. Secondly, the studies on this fall in the "Statistically insignificant" range. The study that showed that circumcised men were less likely to get cancer concluded at 0.2% difference! Others showed circumcised men were more likely, but again, insignificant differences. Furthermore, considering penile cancer is not a cancer of the glans or foreskin, but of the sponge tissue beneath, it's not surprising that it has no difference.



> • Decrease in urological problems generally.


Citation please. And since this is related, roughly 33% of American newborns have complications from their circumcision. Most are usually infection and excessive bleeding. Not uncommon are severe skin deformations that cause holes in the skin, or extremely painful skin bridges. The scar left over is weak and unable to harden and can tear later in life, but this is rare.

And if you cling onto a 0.2% chance to reduce penile cancer because one study said so in the 1 in 226,666 men to get penile cancer in a year, you should really swallow the 1.5% severe complication rate of circumcision resulting in penile amputation, and, in a few cases in the past decade, improvised sex changes on newborns because of it. 

Furthermore, the mentality of "Never miss what you've never had" is fucking disturbing and can be applied to equally cruel acts like removing the eyelids of a newborn because doing so actually does reduce the rate of skin cancer on the eyelids.  . After all, "they'll never know any different!"   And trust me, you don't even want me to drop the nuclear bomb by touching the issue of forcing a newborn into a cosmetic surgery that has medical consequences.

Holy shit, it's like the guy who has a Masters of Science in Biology, does medical school, and has written a thesis on the topic might have done more research than the people who grasp for straws to justify why their penis isn't normal and in doing so, trying to bring more people into their misery.
Take a hint from the Pediatricians in my family, "We never recommend circumcision and always inform patients of the risks and consequences whilst dismantling the lies and rumors as fulfilling our role in ensuring that our patients are as healthy and happy as they can be with the skills we possess. We also recognize that promoting anger, regret, and even vengeance on the issue does not improve one's health or self-image."
-A family pediatric group in the northeast region of the US


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2012)

Regardless of the arguments made the only thing I can picture when reading this thread is men arguing who's dick is more awesome.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Regardless of the arguments made the only thing I can picture when reading this thread is men arguing who's dick is more awesome.



Yeah, but this is about forcing newborns into a cosmetic surgery that has medical consequences. For the "my dick is better this way" thread, see the Bathhouse.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

I've never seen any convincing evidence that it's harmful one way or the other


----------



## On and On (Jul 3, 2012)

There's no conclusive research to say one is more susceptible to STD's than the other - for every "study" that takes one side there's an opposite study. It's retarded. I say if it ain't broke don't fix it - don't circumcize your son unless you have to due to a medical anomaly  When it comes down to it, it's an entirely cosmetic procedure


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> I've never seen any convincing evidence that it's harmful one way or the other



Death isn't harmful in your opinion?


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

have people died of circumcision


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> have people died of circumcision



Yep, even when done in hospitals in first world nations like America, Canada, and most of Europe. Primary cause of death is infection, then blood loss,and finally shock.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> have people died of circumcision



Yes! About 1 in every 500,000 infant circumcisions result in death. I don't understand why it's making you laugh.



ImperatorMortis said:


> I'm cut, and I like it. I don't remember my circumcision at all.
> 
> But I guess the Germans can do what they want? But I don't see the big deal either way.
> 
> Unless you're talking about Female circumcision. That is all kinds of wrong.


Yet the women who have been circumcised are usually fine with it, and are usually the ones leading their younger female relatives to be circumcised. Sounds a lot like "I'm cut, and I like it" don't you think?


----------



## Dr. White (Jul 3, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Hearing people defend circumcision when every medical association is against it sickens me. Let's me just take 1 second to obliterate this list:
> 
> 
> 99.9% of all males don't have phimosis when they start puberty. Nor is phimosis actually a "problem". The AAP cited plenty of home methods to treat it such as masturbation and lotions. The AAFP in 2007 quote, "As such, it?s not uncommon for no treatment to be prescribed [for phimosis]. "
> ...



Sources or this paragraph never happened.

For the record: "I am 100% happy about my parents decision to circumcise me." Also I have never met a male who had complications because of circumcision unless it occurred later on in life.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

Xwhitefangx7 said:


> Sources or this paragraph never happened.





			
				Updated thesis citations said:
			
		

> Fleiss, Paul M., and Frederick M. Hodges. "What Doctors Don't Tell You About Circumcision." MENsight Magazine. N.p., 2008. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. <http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Fleiss,%20M.%20Paul/tellaboutcirc.htm>.
> Romberg, Rosemary. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985. N. pag. Print.
> E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pag. 442-448. Print
> Bigelow, Jim. The Joy of Uncircumcising! 2nd ed. Aptos, CA: Hourglass Book, 1994. N. pag. Print.
> ...





> For the record: "I am 100% happy about my parents decision to circumcise me." Also I have never met a male who had complications because of circumcision unless it occurred later on in life.


And why did your parents make that decision, and why didn't they let you decide? And do people frequently talk about the troubles of their penises to you? Nope, but they would to a doctor, hence the sources.
Especally problems that happened before they could remember things? And on top of that, if they "never knew any differently."  
You know I know many born-blind people that swear that they aren't missing anything and that being blind isn't bad. I hear that same shit about this subject as well.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> cus no one wants to get that surgery as an adult.



So we should force it upon them as infants because...?



Mael said:


> We just don't care, Sauf.  Please, spare us the emotional appeal if we really don't care.  I won't hate my parents and there's not a God damn thing you'll preach that'll convince me otherwise.  There are bigger things to reflect on now than our missing skin flap like...getting a job, eating, exercise, women, etc.



 Mael, you accuse me of using an emotional appeal when your argument amounts to "I don't care"? If you don't care, that's fine, but there's a huge difference between "I don't care" and "I don't care, therefore it's impossible for anyone else to care and thus it can be done against their will."



baconbits said:


> Typically we've decided that parents have the right to decide things for their children.  Parents choose schools, religion and the training of their child.  I wonder logically how you would answer those parents who get their children's ears pierced at a young age.



Yeah, ear piercings seem to have some special status for reasons I'll never understand. IMO they should be treated just like other piercings. In Germany that means you have to be at least 16 years old and give your consent plus that of your legal guardian.



> Because their religious values implore them to do this at a young age.  Plus the longer you wait the more painful it is.



No, it's equally painful for all ages, we just have a better pain memory when we're older.

And I don't give a flying fuck about religious values, because the right to physical integrity trumps religious freedom in every instance except this one (or at least it used to until the judge's ruling).



> If it is simply cosmetic there is really no reason you ought to object to it.



I beg your pardon? It's surgery that *permanently* alters a part of your body, which many consider the most private and sacred part of the male body.



> One could argue that ear piercings and hair styles are also cosmetic changes that could have an influence on the child.  The question should be does the parent have the right to decide things for the child?



Ear piercings I agree, although I do believe the pierced hole is so tiny that it will actually grow back together if you don't wear an ear ring for some time. Hair grows back, so that's not comparable.



Mijuu said:


> I dont know.
> 
> I was circumcised, I certainly never felt maimed.
> 
> Eh, whatever this "sense" is, it certainly isnt common be that good or ill.



Of course not, if half of your classmates had the same thing done to them, you won't feel left out. Many Egyptian women don't feel maimed either, because female genital mutilation is almost as common there as male genital mutilation is in the US.



Petes12 said:


> I've never seen any convincing evidence that it's harmful one way or the other



Let's assume it isn't, what would that change? It is still permanently altering a very important part of your body. If it's not harmful or if it is in fact beneficial, then why the fuck should we force it upon infants instead of letting adults choose for themselves?


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So we should force it upon them as infants because...?



because tbqh im happy i got it, i just would never want to remember getting it


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm not sure why you people are still arguing about this ?  the only thing that this bill achieved is that there are going to be less money going to the German health institutions, people are still going to circumcise their newborns whether you think it's disgusting or not this is really futile you're only loosing money and not "saving" any child .


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> because tbqh im happy i got it, i just would never want to remember getting it



And your sentiments are therefore the standard that all humans on the planet must conform to, whether they like it or not?

Am I really the only person here who sees a problem with the "It was done to me and I don't mind, so no human being could possibly object to it" argument?

You'll find plenty of victims of female circumcision who say they're okay with it and even want it done to others females. Why is your argument valid and theirs isn't when they're exactly identical?



xenopyre said:


> I'm not sure why you people are still arguing about this ?  the only thing that this bill achieved is that there are going to be less money going to the German health institutions, people are still going to circumcise their newborns whether you think it's disgusting or not this is really futile you're only loosing money and not "saving" any child .



There is no bill, read the article before posting.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> There is no bill, read the article before posting.


So this is only restricted to Cologne and won't become a federal bill/ruling ?


----------



## Taco (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> because tbqh im happy i got it, i just would never want to remember getting it



May I ask what about it makes you happy?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> So this is only restricted to Cologne and won't become a federal bill/ruling ?



We don't need a bill, it's already in the constitution. The judge simply affirmed that religious freedom and parental caprice do not trump a human's right to physical integrity.

And no, the only people who will perhaps continue to circumcise their children are the religious nutjobs. Parents who had their children circumcized for purely cosmetical reasons, will not risk killing or losing their children and going to prison. Religious fundamentalism among Jews in Germany is pretty rare (the Jewish hospital in Berlin has already announced it will cease all routine infant circumcision), which leaves the muslims. Since muslims don't circumcize at birth, but rather some time around puberty, the ruling would only delay that by a few years. 

Those who cannot wait will have to risk getting charged with grievous bodily harm. But those are the kind of people who would have their girls' genitals mutilated as well, so they don't care for such laws to begin with.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2012)

> Religious fundamentalism among Jews in Germany is pretty rare



Well we all know what happened last time they were showing themselves out and about.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> Well we all know what happened last time they were showing themselves out and about.



Welp, the central council of Jews in Germany has already condemned this thing and naturally bloggers all around the globe whine about anti-semitism and islamophobia. For the most part Jewish Germans aren't any different from christians or non-religious people, though, which means they really don't much care for bronze age barbarism.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

of course they are. germany somehow being the one place in the world where judges think circumcision should be punishable by the law? no not suspect at all


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Jul 3, 2012)

I don't have a foreskin.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> of course they are. germany somehow being the one place in the world where judges think circumcision should be punishable by the law? no not suspect at all



Look mate, this is getting embarassing. Now you're throwing in an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Some country had to be the first to abolish slavery, some country had to be the first to allow women to vote and some country has to be the first to stop religious barbarism from mutilating infant genitals.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> I don't have a foreskin.



You could pretend you had trauma over choice and make some decent green off a lawsuit unless it means your parents will be jailed.


----------



## Seph (Jul 3, 2012)

> Yeah, ear piercings seem to have some special status for reasons I'll never understand. IMO they should be treated just like other piercings. In Germany that means you have to be at least 16 years old and give your consent plus that of your legal guardian.



You conveniently ignored the former part of his post, where he talked about parents having the ability to decide other things for their children.

Parents have the ability to make (subjective) decisions for the greater good of their child, such as deciding the school they go to, religion, medical decisions and all sorts of other things that permanently affect the child's life. A parent may judge that circumcision (regardless of the reasons) is the right thing to do for the greater good of their child (remember that circumcision is closely related to religion). If the parent can decide their school, religion and etc. but not if they get their foreskin cut off, doesn't that seem self-contradictory?

Is it the right thing to do to wait for the child to turn 16 or 18 or whatever? Yes, but it's not as practical as you claim it is. Should we wait until a child turns 18 to decide which school he goes to?

..I'm not defending circumcision, I'm just pointing out what I think is a self-contradiction.


----------



## emmy-lou (Jul 3, 2012)

I think that circumcision is totally unnecessary, but if someone wants to do it then they should be able to.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> We don't need a bill, it's already in the constitution. The judge simply affirmed that religious freedom and parental caprice do not trump a human's right to physical integrity.
> 
> And no, the only people who will perhaps continue to circumcise their children are the religious nutjobs. Parents who had their children circumcized for purely cosmetical reasons, will not risk killing or losing their children and going to prison. Religious fundamentalism among Jews in Germany is pretty rare (the Jewish hospital in Berlin has already announced it will cease all routine infant circumcision), which leaves the muslims. Since muslims don't circumcize at birth, but rather some time around puberty, the ruling would only delay that by a few years.
> 
> Those who cannot wait will have to risk getting charged with grievous bodily harm. But those are the kind of people who would have their girls' genitals mutilated as well, so they don't care for such laws to begin with.


But religious people constitute the majority bulk behind this practice, so there isn't going to be any noticeable statistical change about this situation, not to mention that you don't have to be a fundamentalist nutjob to circumcise your child, the practice has long ago lost its ritualistic aspect, now it's just an ethnic trademark that even Atheists from Islamic background do it( I would think Jews as well since they still refer to themselves as Jewish even though they don't follow Judaism), so no it's not only the nutjobs who are going to continue the practice .


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Look mate, this is getting embarassing. Now you're throwing in an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
> 
> Some country had to be the first to abolish slavery, some country had to be the first to allow women to vote and some country has to be the first to stop religious barbarism from mutilating infant genitals.


just saying you can't be surprised by the reactions that it may not be a totally unbiased ruling. a cursory look shows most national medical associations shows a lot more ambiguity, and generally an 'eh it doesnt really matter let the parents decide' attitude towards it. Except in africa where it's recommended to help prevent HIV for some reason


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> You conveniently ignored the former part of his post, where he talked about parents having the ability to decide other things for their children.
> 
> Parents have the ability to make (subjective) decisions for the greater good of their child, such as deciding the school they go to, religion, medical decisions and all sorts of other things that permanently affect the child's life. A parent may judge that circumcision (regardless of the reasons) is the right thing to do for the greater good of their child (remember that circumcision is closely related to religion). If the parent can decide their school, religion and etc. but not if they get their foreskin cut off, doesn't that seem self-contradictory?
> 
> ...





Sorry, I the fault in the first part of his post was so obvious that I hardly registered it as an argument.

Schools or religions do not permanently alter the body of a child. Although I agree that it's retarded to let parents force their children into a religion.

As for medical decisions, parents make those when they *have to*, not when they *feel like it*. Removing the tonsils or the appendix is usually a matter of life and death. 

Parents *cannot* simply walk into a hospital with their infant and say "here's money, now remove his appendix" and everyone can see why they're not allowed to do that. But somehow it's alright with circumcision.



emmy-lou said:


> I think that circumcision is totally unnecessary, but if someone wants to do it then they should be able to.



Nobody argues against that, the problem is people doing it without knowing whether or not the person in question wants it. Adults are still allowed to get circumcized whenever they feel like it.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

Listen folks, the UN said it well,


			
				UN Human Rights Consul said:
			
		

> “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children” (Article 24.3, Children’s Rights)


----------



## Seph (Jul 3, 2012)

> Schools or religions do not permanently alter the body of a child. Although I agree that it's retarded to let parents force their children into a religion.



That's such a garbage argument I'm surprised you hadn't even considered how asinine it was.

1) Mental changes can be just as bad as physical changes (religion, environment)
2) Circumcision as an infant is not nearly as traumatizing and life determining as say, becoming a Muslim or joining a gang due to one's school environment (the school that parents picked).

The lesson to learn here is that mental changes like school, religion etc. can't be ignored and are just as important as things like circumcision, if not more so.



> As for medical decisions, parents make those when they have to, not when they feel like it. Removing the tonsils or the appendix is usually a matter of life and death.



Where is your evidence for this premise, that parents can only make medical decisions when they have to? I find it hard to believe that circumcision and piercings are the only ones.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> just saying you can't be surprised by the reactions that it may not be a totally unbiased ruling. a cursory look shows most national medical associations shows a lot more ambiguity, and generally an 'eh it doesnt really matter let the parents decide' attitude towards it. Except in africa where it's recommended to help prevent HIV for some reason



The reason why it helps HIV prevention in certain cases is because many areas in Africa don't have access to proper hygiene so that bacteria accumulates in the smegma. It's not an issue for someone who takes a shower more than once a week, which applies to 99.999% of westerners with a sex life.



xenopyre said:


> But religious people constitute the majority bulk behind this practice



No, they don't. I don't have any good numbers for Germany, but in the USA 50% of more of the population is circumcized, but muslims and jews only make up about 2-3% of the population.



> , so there isn't going to be any noticeable statistical change about this situation,



Yes, there will be.



> not to mention that you don't have to be a fundamentalist nutjob to circumcise your child,



You do if it's against the law and no longer something everybody just nods off.



> the practice has long ago lost its ritualistic aspect,



No, it hasn't.



> now it's just an ethnic trademark that even Atheists from Islamic background do it( I would think Jews as well since they still refer to themselves as Jewish even though they don't follow Judaism), so no it's not only the nutjobs who are going to continue the practice .



You think those people will risk their child's life to uphold some racist trademark?

Your shitty arguments are baseless and hold no water whatsoever. Germany is not as nutty as you think.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

Seph said:


> That's such a garbage argument I'm surprised you hadn't even considered how asinine it was.
> 
> 1) Mental changes can be just as bad as physical changes (religion, environment)
> 2) Circumcision as an infant is not nearly as traumatizing and life determining as say, becoming a Muslim or joining a gang due to one's school environment (the school that parents picked).
> ...



While I somewhat agree with you, especially regarding religion, the law however does not. The law sees a huge difference between physical and mental problems.

Circumcision can easily be shown to damage the physical integrity of a human, whereas it's another thing entirely to prove before a court that a certain decision your parents made has damaged you psychologically.

By your logic a physical assault should be treated just like an insult, since the latter can damage you psychologically.



> Where is your evidence for this premise, that parents can only make medical decisions when they have to? I find it hard to believe that circumcision and piercings are the only ones.



I can't prove a negative, why don't you name surgery that parents can have performer on their children?


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 3, 2012)

Let's see, I'm an adult, and therefore able to make decisions about my body

Do I consider getting water splashed on my forehead bodily harm?
No
What about letting a bearded old vodoo man who believes the sun is magic take a knife to my dick and slice off whatever part takes his fancy?
Hmm hard choice.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 3, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Typically we've decided that parents have the right to decide things for their children.  Parents choose schools, religion and the training of their child.  I wonder logically how you would answer those parents who get their children's ears pierced at a young age.


Ear piercings differ from circumcisions on three very important levels.
1. Usually it's done because the child asks for it. It's not forced on them when they are only a few days old.
2. Piercings will heal. But you won't ever get your foreskin back.
3. Foreskins have important sexual and protective function. Earlobes don't have any known function.

It is better to equate circumcision to the removal of the entire outer ear, or the lower eyelid. You can still hear without outer ears and you can still close your eyes with only the upper eyelid.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 3, 2012)

Won't these religious people just go across the border into another country to get circumcised? Or worse, just go underground to some shady quack with a knife? 

Even though I agree with the sentiment, this ruling seems like it could cause a lot of children to die from improper treatment.


----------



## Petes12 (Jul 3, 2012)

^ yes. 

i mean, again just looking around at cursory sources, it seems that yeah some babies have died from circumcision- when it was performed in some shithole country with kitchen silverware


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 3, 2012)

Penn and teller on circumscision
*WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF BREASTS AND THE TOPIC AT HAND, WHICH IS WELL PPENIS*


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

I love Penn & Teller. pek


----------



## hyakku (Jul 3, 2012)

Fuck smegma, my kid's getting his shit cut off with mother fucking lasers.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 3, 2012)

I was actually gonna post both videos, but then I went "nope, pedos are ok in this forum, but not too ok"


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 3, 2012)

So this is a step toward attacking a currently accept social norm based on health reasons. 

Think of it like the christians being against bathing in the middle ages

According to one medical treaty of the 16th century, “Water baths warm the body, but weaken the organism and widen pores.  That’s why they can be dangerous and cause different diseases, even death.” 


The practice Circumcision is much the same as the restriction on bathing was then. Health risks due to poor sanitation of primitive culture mixed with religious tendencies against things the considered sinful create a social norm. 
The support for the continue social practices is backed up today as it was then, with flimsy psuedo science that seek mainly to keep up the status quo.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jul 3, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> I love Penn & Teller. pek



Who doesn't? I learn more from Penn and Teller than I learn from most of my teachers at my own school.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 3, 2012)

Petes12 said:


> of course they are. germany somehow being the one place in the world where judges think circumcision should be punishable by the law? no not suspect at all


It's not, a couple of months ago, I remember reading about internal debates among the coalition currently in power here in Norway to implement a similar law to what is being discussed in this thread.

Germany just seems like the first country to have balls enough to piss off all the religious apologists by using modern morality founded by scientific facts.

As for the topic at hand, there is 1 main fact I feel should be mentioned to all of you people who think circumcision isn't that bad:

*IT REDUCES SENSITIVITY IN THE HEAD OF THE PENIS AND THUS REDUCES SEXUAL PLEASURE*

For a surgery that has minute debatable advantages that Toroxus has done an excellent job refuting, I can't believe so many people are arguing for it in this thread.

It's an outdated, archaic practice that has no place as a common procedure in today's world.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 3, 2012)

What if children would be given the powr to slice their dead parent's genitals off once they die, if their religion says so?
A ok amirite?


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 3, 2012)

This topic is almost literally a dick measuring contest. What the fuck is wrong with you people? And why is it suddenly okay to bash other cultures that happen to be different than yours, but racism is bad?

Y'all should read this though, if you are interested in saving pure and unmaimed penises.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 3, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> This topic is almost literally a dick measuring contest. What the fuck is wrong with you people? And why is it suddenly okay to bash other cultures that happen to be different than yours, but racism is bad?


Yeah, cause arguing for the prevention of unnecessary surgeries to babies who can't refuse is just as trivial as measuring dicks?

Would you feel that bashing a culture that accepted abuse of women was racist too? Some cultural norms are simply more barbaric and inferior than others, and any philosophy grounded in cultural relativism can't refute that.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 3, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, they don't. I don't have any good numbers for Germany, but in the USA 50% of more of the population is circumcized, but muslims and jews only make up about 2-3% of the population.


We're talking about Germany here in which the majority of circumcised children are from religion associated families, (about 10% of the 0-17 years old population which matches the statistics of Muslims/Jews childrens )




> Yes, there will be.


No there won't you're posting statistics from the US which aren't really affectable by German court rulings.so overall circumcision ratio in the world won't change due to this ruling



> You do if it's against the law and no longer something everybody just nods off.


No, you would just go to another country where it's legal, and since most muslims in Germany are of immigrant origins they wouldn't have any qualms about it .




> No, it hasn't.


I hardly think people think of Abraham's covenant and his attempted filicide when they do it, it's a social blending event .



> You think those people will risk their child's life to uphold some racist trademark?


You're making it sound as if it's a heart transplant  any hospital in the world would be able to perform it in a more or less risk free manner.


> Your shitty arguments are baseless and hold no water whatsoever. Germany is not as nutty as you think.


I'm not sure, what's so nutty about it ? how many people actually whine about being circumcised at childhood ? it seems more of an " people are acting different than us then they must barbaric hurr hurr durr" case here .It doesn't matter if it has any medical benefits or not, it was never about medical benefits to begin with.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 3, 2012)

perman07 said:


> Would you feel that bashing a culture that accepted abuse of women was racist too? Some cultural norms are simply more barbaric and inferior than others, and any philosophy grounded in cultural relativism can't refute that.



Yeah. Not my culture. Aren't we supposed to tolerate others or something?


----------



## perman07 (Jul 3, 2012)

Hehe, everything I glean from your 2 posts, your avatar and your sig suggests you like to troll, so I see no reason to respond to you


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> This topic is almost literally a dick measuring contest. What the fuck is wrong with you people? And why is it suddenly okay to bash other cultures that happen to be different than yours, but racism is bad?


Why is it suddenly okay to go after this practice? Because it's done on people without their consent. And, in my book, that makes a lot of things go from okay to suddenly not okay.



perman07 said:


> *IT REDUCES SENSITIVITY IN THE HEAD OF THE PENIS AND THUS REDUCES SEXUAL PLEASURE*


Should I even mention that the glans of the penis doesn't actually get much sensation. 
In a normal male, ~70% of all the nerves in the penis are in the foreskin, with 100% of all the pleasure-only sensing nerves (erogenous nerves) being in the foreskin. The glans only have general nerve endings like somatic skin cells, it's actually because the brain attributes them to pleasure that they actually feel pleasurable, but they aren't purpose built for pleasure. No, the foreskin's nerves are purpose built for pleasure, and it's because of how the erogenous nerves are wired to the other nerves in the penis that providing sensation to the foreskin not only makes your foreskin feel pleasurable, but because nature decided to take some short-cuts on wiring, it also makes your glans feel pleasurable even with no sensation directly.

I already mentioned how removal of the foreskin destroys it's primary purpose of protecting the nerves in the glans and the underside of the foreskin and thus causes the glans to harden to compensate which kills many of the nerves left inside, but circumcised males are only able to feel pleasure because of the local attribution of those nerves, whether or not those nerves are sending pain, touch, or temperature signals doesn't matter when aroused.

In other words, circumcised males can only feel pleasure because the brain has evolved to know that there's a huge amount of pleasure sensory in that region and is so used to reading those signals as pleasure during arousal that it interprets them all as such.
Of course.  This also shuts off many of the pain reception gates so that circumcised males can't feel if they are hurting themselves until a certain point which is much more severe than normal males. 

It's almost like circumcision is an intentional attempt to make the penis less sensitive. Oh wait, that's exactly why it was introduced into America, Canada, and the UK by famed cereal maker Kellogg. 



			
				My section on Kellogg said:
			
		

> Masturbation was so vilified and detested, it became known as ?Self-abuse.?
> "It [self abuse] lays the foundation for consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when grown, commit suicide.... Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near death before you realize that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of circumcision...'(Bigelow)
> 
> Circumcision started to become a widespread practice as a preventative measure for masturbation, and thus prevent many diseases. It spread to England, Canada, and Australia. Oddly enough, circumcision was not advocated to do anything else. Once this generation became adults, and their children circumcised, the idea that circumcision is for hygienic reasons was born and became traditional.
> Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of Kellogg?s cereal, *himself stated that circumcision should be used as a remedy for masturbation and that it should be done without anesthetic as to connect it with the idea of punishment. He continues to describe using acid to burn away the clitoris to prevent females from masturbating.*



Nice guy.  If you take nothing else from this thread, take the last two sentences of that quote.



> For a surgery that has minute debatable advantages that Toroxus has done an excellent job refuting, I can't believe so many people are arguing for it in this thread.




I've never met a person argue for circumcision that wasn't circumcised as an infant. I've never met a person argue for circumcision that was circumcised as an adult. There's are two reasons for this:
1. People are trying to save their self-image by pulling other people into their misery.
2. Anyone who was normal and than was circumcised and was old enough to remember would know the difference between the two states. I know about a dozen people in person who were circumcised as teenagers or adults, and every one of them regrets it and most of them do that foreskin restoration via accelerated cell cycle method.

You see, for group 2, it's not a case of "never knew any different," they knew different and they definitely know the difference.

I think it's absolutely disgusting to try to justify what happened to you when instead you could work to prevent it from happening to others.


----------



## T4R0K (Jul 3, 2012)

Well, I imagine lots of people will just go out of Germany to do it, and then come back once it's done. Unless the law is extended to make even that illegal. Like, let's take a turkish family. They go to Turkey have the boy circumsized, and when they try to come back to Germany, if there's a medical inspection, their resident visa is denied and they have no choice but to move to Turkey.

In a way, that move seems targeted at making Germany "unattractive" to move in if you plan to have a family and kids there. 

Well, that's the good old "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else"...

My stance ? Well, it's hard to rethink something I took for granted due to my education. I always think tha if I have boys, they'll be circumsized. But I'm not that religious, don't care much, so why should I ? Can't I let my kids decide when they become 18 ? Wanna be religious ? Your call.

Still, the confusion between my familial upbringing and the secular education I received makes my head dizzy litterally ! I mean, I physically feel dizzy thinking about "But it's my people's tradition !!" and "But hey, who am I to mutilate my child ?!"

Oh, good lord...


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

T4R0K said:


> I always think tha if I have boys, they'll be circumsized.


I have one sentence to say:


			
				T4R0K said:
			
		

> Can't I let my kids decide when they become 18



Take your own advice.


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2012)

The part of the video where it showed the baby crying and getting his dick cut made me almost cry.

Holy shit.


----------



## T4R0K (Jul 3, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Take your own advice.



I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking... Ever so since I noticed I'm growing less patient with "my people" being so backwards and stepping all over my path to happiness. My mother is scared of my taste for black women. I'm boiling to tell her that's my business and none of hers, but the bond is so strong, I'd be shattered just as much as I'll shatter her. But that another story. Not the place here.

OK, I'll share my circumcision story, since I can still remember it very clearly :

I was 4 or 5, but I know a lot of old women were present. It was in my grand-ma's living room, they put me in a sort of white robes, and I was told to lay down. Then the "barber" came, that was actually a doctor, but I don't remember an imam being here... Maybe the doctor was also an imam. They made me breath something, certainly formol, and I was dizzy.

Then.

*Snip* A pain, a scream, and then, nothingness. I fainted. When I came back to, I was alone on the coach, there was a lot of money in a box on the table, and my wiener was hurting, so I was walking like a man kicked in the groin. Peed blood.

And that was it.

There was no shame, There was no pride. It was just so.


----------



## Pilaf (Jul 3, 2012)

About goddamn time a civilized nation realized this.

Another victory


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

T4R0K said:


> I was 4 or 5, but I know a lot of old women were present. It was in my grand-ma's living room, they put me in a sort of white robes, and I was told to lay down. Then the "barber" came, that was actually a doctor, but I don't remember an imam being here... Maybe the doctor was also an imam. They made me breath something, certainly formol, and I was dizzy.
> 
> Then.
> 
> ...



This disturbs me greatly. 
The only beacon of light in this is that hopefully you won't do it to someone else.


----------



## T4R0K (Jul 3, 2012)

Mind you, my girlfriend likes my dick being cut. She says it looks better than with the cap...

She's disturbing as well... She compared my dick to other dicks to conclude that !!


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2012)

Should I share mine?

I was 5, my parents are muslim. I was taken to some religious place. I was told that everything would be okay for no fucking reason and I started to worry a bit because the atmosphere seemed really weird. My dad tugged me by the arm and took me into some room with some man I didn't know. Before I knew what was happening they restrained me and put me on a table. Then the butcher started taking off my pants. I screamed. No one helped. Then I got my penis cut, no surprise there. The sad thing is, I did catch some kind of infection but it got treated pretty fast. In a week or so. But god damn did that week hurt. Anyways, yeah it was pure terror. If you're gonna put your kids through that make sure they won't remember it. Worst day of my life.

And no I'm not fucking trolling. That shit happened.


----------



## SwordKing (Jul 3, 2012)

Spartan1337 said:


> Who doesn't? I learn more from Penn and Teller than I learn from most of my teachers at my own school.



You mean the same Penn and Teller who claimed there was nothing wrong with second hand smoke?


----------



## GRIMMM (Jul 3, 2012)

Still confused over this whole "uncut smegma" thing several people have posted about and people keep mentioning as if it is some sort of curse or truth. Is this something all people who are uncircumcised get in their life time?

If so, I must be doing something wrong.


----------



## Prince Vegeta (Jul 3, 2012)

I read in my biology book muslims do it because its clean ...


----------



## T4R0K (Jul 3, 2012)

Ace, dude, they did you barbarian style ! Mine wasn't that violent ! It all happened so calmly for me ! Maybe this is how I chose to remember it, but I was told days in advance that it would happen, that it wasn't terrible, it would hurt a bit, but after that I'd be "a man". 

A man, dressed in a white girl dress (I remember it now, it wasn't robes. It was a cute girly dress. Now that I remember, it looked somehow like that : 

Damn, that's worse than remembering the act !!! THEY TRIED TO MAKE ME A TRAVESTITE !!! Is that why I felt sympathy for One Piece's Ivankoff... ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> We're talking about Germany here in which the majority of circumcised children are from religion associated families, (about 10% of the 0-17 years old population which matches the statistics of Muslims/Jews childrens )



Where did you get that number from?



> No there won't you're posting statistics from the US which aren't really affectable by German court rulings.so overall circumcision ratio in the world won't change due to this ruling



Again, you assume that all jews and muslims in Germany are batshit insane fundamentalists who would risk their children and jail for their bronze age superstitions.



> No, you would just go to another country where it's legal, and since most muslims in Germany are of immigrant origins they wouldn't have any qualms about it .



I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to take your girls to Africa to have their genitals mutilated, why would it be different for boys?



> I hardly think people think of Abraham's covenant and his attempted filicide when they do it, it's a social blending event .



It's a religious tradition. Christians hardly think of Jesus's flesh and blood when they have their last supper nonsense, does that make it some racial trademark for white people?



> You're making it sound as if it's a heart transplant  any hospital in the world would be able to perform it in a more or less risk free manner.



Immigrants usually travel to some backwater shithole and have a witch doctor (or whatever muslims call those guys) perform it.



> I'm not sure, what's so nutty about it ? how many people actually whine about being circumcised at childhood ? it seems more of an " people are acting different than us then they must barbaric hurr hurr durr" case here .It doesn't matter if it has any medical benefits or not, it was never about medical benefits to begin with.



No, it was never about medical benefits. The ruling isn't about medical benefits either. It's about a child's fucking right to receive his body (and that means his entire body) fully intact when he enters adulthood. The right to physical integrity trumps any religious, magical cock slicing mandated by some guy's imaginary friend.


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2012)

> Ace, dude, they did you barbarian style ! Mine wasn't that violent ! It  all happened so calmly for me ! Maybe this is how I chose to remember  it, but I was told days in advance that it would happen, that it wasn't  terrible, it would hurt a bit, but after that I'd be "a man".



lucky



> I read in my biology book muslims do it because its clean ...



They think you're dirty if you don't circumsize.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 3, 2012)

GRIMMM said:


> Still confused over this whole "uncut smegma" thing several people have posted about and people keep mentioning as if it is some sort of curse or truth. Is this something all people who are uncircumcised get in their life time?
> 
> If so, I must be doing something wrong.



Stop showering for a few weeks and then check under your foreskin. Otherwise, it's not a concern.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm Circumcised and I feel bad, very bad....I cry every night.....I'm traumatized....they mutilate me uuuuuuargh......

Well, I'm one of those that needed this operation. I feel ok now. It's easier to clean my penis now. I think I was 9 or 10 year old.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 3, 2012)

T4R0K said:


> Ace, dude, they did you barbarian style ! Mine wasn't that violent ! It all happened so calmly for me ! Maybe this is how I chose to remember it, but I was told days in advance that it would happen, that it wasn't terrible, it would hurt a bit, but after that I'd be "a man".
> 
> A man, dressed in a white girl dress (I remember it now, it wasn't robes. It was a cute girly dress. Now that I remember, it looked somehow like that :
> 
> Damn, that's worse than remembering the act !!! THEY TRIED TO MAKE ME A TRAVESTITE !!! Is that why I felt sympathy for One Piece's Ivankoff... ?


You mean something like this? 

As for mine, my father told me days in advance and if I want to get it, though I was 4 and he said that that i'll get a ton if money and lot of candies so I said yes ; but It wasn't painful at all, actually I didn't feel a thing until I  looked and saw the blood then I freaked out but it was already over .


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

SwordKing said:


> You mean the same Penn and Teller who claimed there was nothing wrong with second hand smoke?



But then when more valid studies came out they released a statement to the press saying they rescind their statements. Yep, them. 



GRIMMM said:


> Still confused over this whole "uncut smegma" thing several people have posted about and people keep mentioning as if it is some sort of curse or truth. Is this something all people who are uncircumcised get in their life time?
> 
> If so, I must be doing something wrong.



Smegma is a combination of dead skin and oils that your glans secrete. The combination of the two make it really difficult for infections to settle in. Smegma is more of a powder, and only starts to smell after it's built up for a long long time. Aka: If you haven't rinsed your penis in water for about a week or two.

Smegma is there to prevent infections and to lubricate. A little is fine, and apart from cut-only Eastern USA, most people actually prefer a little smegma because it gives a "good taste." Figures, it's almost like humans were meant to be attracted to the smell of a penis for mating. 
Of course, the only time you hear about Smegma is when someone doesn't fucking bathe in forever.

Prepubescents rarely pull their skin back, and many of them can't. As such, there's no need for this anti-bacterial/viral secretion nor a need of lubrication. Minors make so little smegma that it can't actually build up before the body digests it fully. Of course, this all changes when they hit puberty and start masturbating in the shower and stuff.
Oh yeah, did I mention that if a male just masturbates by fully retrating and protracting his skin that it removes all the excess smegma and leaves behind a thin layer of oil for protection?
Again, it's almost like Mother Nature devised this stuff with logic and self-sufficiency in mind.

If Smegma and a foreskin was really such a problem in terms of infections and stuff, DON'T YOU THINK SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES OF THE ENTIRE MAMMALIAN FAMILY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AWAY WITH?! Hello, natural selection is the answer to all of this biology debate. Not to say that everything we have is up-to-date in terms of vestigiality, but those things are being selected against and we can clearly see that. But to say that something such as the penis is not functional how we receive it is bizarre because that's something that gets selected for in natural selection. Natural Selection can't select against breast cancer in your 60s because you've already passed on your genes.


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2012)

If it means anything my dick is now gorgeous.


----------



## T4R0K (Jul 3, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> You mean something like this?



No. I now remember it. It was pristine white, and it looks extremly girly.

And we're not arabs, there're no jellabas in Bosnia.

@Ace : dude, totally !! Ladies love it !


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 3, 2012)

The problem with that is that is if you go anywhere else in the world, they'll think it's disgusting. Likewise, the rate of circumcision is falling so fast in the US. Go to west of the Mississippi and the girls will tell you that cut ones look gross, but almost all the boys they are around are normal.

Besides, that's not a valid argument for this topic. Let the person decide as an adult what he wants his own body to look like.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 3, 2012)

Looks are irrelevant indeed, cause the statistics on preference among girls vary between countries with different circumcision habits, meaning they prefer what they're used to.


----------



## Evil Ghost Ninja (Jul 3, 2012)

T4R0K said:


> No. I now remember it. It was pristine white, and it looks extremly girly.
> 
> And we're not arabs, there're no jellabas in Bosnia.
> 
> @Ace : dude, totally !! Ladies love it !



what you were wearing sounds like a Christening Gown.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Jul 3, 2012)

Mael said:


> You could pretend you had trauma over choice and make some decent green off a lawsuit unless it means your parents will be jailed.



I was much too young to remember it at all.


----------



## cnorwood (Jul 3, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> The problem with that is that is if you go anywhere else in the world, they'll think it's disgusting. Likewise, the rate of circumcision is falling so fast in the US. Go to west of the Mississippi and the girls will tell you that cut ones look gross, but almost all the boys they are around are normal.
> 
> Besides, that's not a valid argument for this topic. Let the person decide as an adult what he wants his own body to look like.



I live west of the Mississippi and I hear the opposite.....


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 3, 2012)

Germany making policies against Jews? Here we go again.




> I gotta say, Germany is the last place I expected to do this. Mad props to the brave judge who put the rights of children before superstitious barbarism.



 Shut up. You're no more civil than anyone. If I had a nickle for every seemingly pointless western custom --like wearing retarded pieces of cloth around a neck--I'd be one rich dude.

Humans have customs.  I wish I had sunglasses so you could deal with it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Shut up. You're no more civil than anyone. If I had a nickle for every seemingly pointless western custom --like wearing retarded pieces of cloth around a neck--I'd be one rich dude.
> 
> Humans have customs.  I wish I had sunglasses so you could deal with it.



So wearing a tie (which is what I assume you mean) is somehow similar to maiming an infant for life...?


----------



## Louis-954 (Jul 4, 2012)

I'm glad I was circumcised. Now my cock doesn't look like a turtle.


----------



## cnorwood (Jul 4, 2012)

Its just funny, i think people take this shit too seriously. I dont think I have ever meant a guy who was mad that he got circumcised.


----------



## Redshadow49 (Jul 4, 2012)

I remember Al Bundy had his snipped in an episode of married with children. That was on hilarious episode. 

Is piercing a baby's ears still legal? Do people care about that?


----------



## Seph (Jul 4, 2012)

> While I somewhat agree with you, especially regarding religion, the law however does not. The law sees a huge difference between physical and mental problems.
> 
> Circumcision can easily be shown to damage the physical integrity of a human, whereas it's another thing entirely to prove before a court that a certain decision your parents made has damaged you psychologically.
> 
> By your logic a physical assault should be treated just like an insult, since the latter can damage you psychologically.



Just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's correct. The law was something made by humans that exists to be further improved upon--it's something that is constantly evolving. 

So now we have to choose which decisions parents can make or not based on how easy they are to prove? It's not like it's even that difficult to identify what psychologically harmed you.. Even you have to see the absurdity in that statement.



> I can't prove a negative, why don't you name surgery that parents can have performer on their children?



For example, in the case of deformities (such as having 6 toes or fingers, a hole in your chest, etc) that don't really compromise your health, parents can decide whether they want you to get operated on or not.

It seems absurd to ban parents from circumcising their children, but at the same time, allow them to decide so many other important things.


----------



## FireEel (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Okay, so I take it all of you circumcised people are so fucking happy about your parents having cosmetic surgery performed on you as an infant. That's great and all, but what gives you the right to decide this for another human being?



Did I say I was fucking happy?

Don't shove words into my mouth.

I said I didn't care. My parents made that decision for me, and I accept it.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 4, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> Its just funny, i think people take this shit too seriously. I dont think I have ever meant a guy who was mad that he got circumcised.


Of course you haven't, complications aren't that common. But between the reduction of sexual pleasure, the lacking reasons for it to be a common surgery, the fact that it's done against little boys' wills, it's not weird at all that people take this seriously.

Any surgery has a certain risk, infections can happen, things can go wrong even if procedure is followed.

That's why in the rest of the surgery trade, surgery is usually only done if there are significant reasons to do it, and tradition is usually the only reason when it comes to circumcision.

Copying the first line straight from the Complications section on Wikipedia's article on circumcision yields this:
"Complication rates ranging from 0.06% to 55% have been cited; more specific estimates have included 2–10% and 0.2–0.6%.  The authors of a systematic review found a median complication rate of  1.5% among neonates, with a range of 0 to 16%. In older boys, rates  varied from 2-14%, with a median of 6%. The median risk of serious  complications was 0% in both cases."


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 4, 2012)

Redshadow49 said:


> I remember Al Bundy had his snipped in an episode of married with children. That was on hilarious episode.
> 
> Is piercing a baby's ears still legal? Do people care about that?


Nope this is just people bitching. You're usually pretty hard off to find a guy who wants an uncircumcised penis here who hasn't already got one and many girls in the States prefer them.

My penis is cool as shit and I'm glad I'm cut.


----------



## hammer (Jul 4, 2012)

can some one PROVE sexual sensation goes down? I remember my penis was TOO sensitive I had to wrap up for a bath(even with the forskin)


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Seph said:


> Just because the law says something, doesn't mean it's correct. The law was something made by humans that exists to be further improved upon--it's something that is constantly evolving.
> 
> So now we have to choose which decisions parents can make or not based on how easy they are to prove? It's not like it's even that difficult to identify what psychologically harmed you.. Even you have to see the absurdity in that statement.



You just change your argument with every post... We were talking about the legality of circumcision. I agree that parents should not be allowed to force religion on their children, but it's largely irrelevant, since they can just tell their kids that the bullshit their religion preaches is the truth, so the child will "want to" follow that religion. We can't ban parents from lying to their children either, that would just be impractical.

The only logical conclusion is that you let parents make all those decisions. Cosmetic surgery however, is something different entirely (which is why I'm still now sure why we're talking about this), because it demonstrably violates the child's right to physical integrity. 



> For example, in the case of deformities (such as having 6 toes or fingers, a hole in your chest, etc) that don't really compromise your health, parents can decide whether they want you to get operated on or not.



So the foreskin is a deformity now? 



> It seems absurd to ban parents from circumcising their children, but at the same time, allow them to decide so many other important things.



Important decisions that *have to be made*. Parents can't let their children take a debt, indeed children aren't allowed to sign any contracts, because it is assumed that they do not understand the ramifications.

Parents must choose a school for their children, parents must give their children something to eat, parents must raise their children one way or another. Those are things that cannot be avoided and so we give the parents as much leeway as possible, but generally parents are the *guardians* of their children. They don't own the child, it's not their pet or dress-up doll. They merely keep the child safe and try their best to raise it until it's old enough to care for itself.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yeah, ear piercings seem to have some special status for reasons I'll never understand. IMO they should be treated just like other piercings. In Germany that means you have to be at least 16 years old and give your consent plus that of your legal guardian.



I disagree with you opinion in general but you're definitely logically consistent.  My problem is that your logical consistency isn't something I've seen in many others that oppose circumcision.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, it's equally painful for all ages, we just have a better pain memory when we're older.



Some in this thread have said they remember that there was no pain in their circumcision.



Saufsoldat said:


> And I don't give a flying fuck about religious values, because the right to physical integrity trumps religious freedom in every instance except this one (or at least it used to until the judge's ruling).



I'm not sure what you mean by "physical integrity".  What should be said is that your religious freedoms should only be limited by how much those religious freedoms could potentially harm others.  If circumcision is largely cosmetic, as you yourself have acknowledged, there really isn't a grounds for barring the religious practice of it.



Saufsoldat said:


> I beg your pardon? It's surgery that *permanently* alters a part of your body, which many consider the most private and sacred part of the male body.



I agree, but that doesn't lend weight to your argument.  Many consider that it represents what is unclean.  Others could cite statistics that show that cultures that circumcize get less disease and less cancer in their sexual organs than cultures that don't.

Those things don't matter.  Does the circumcision destroy the rights of another?  The parent is allowed to decide on what happens to a child, even cosmetically or with things that have to do with health.  If you take this right from parents to protect a child from a procedure they may disagree with when they reach adulthood you're establishing that a potential opinion change trumps parental rights.



Saufsoldat said:


> Ear piercings I agree, although I do believe the pierced hole is so tiny that it will actually grow back together if you don't wear an ear ring for some time. Hair grows back, so that's not comparable.



The hair example was bad, I agree.  I simply don't see vast injustice done here.  I do see limits on parental freedom.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Important decisions that *have to be made*. Parents can't let their children take a debt, indeed children aren't allowed to sign any contracts, because it is assumed that they do not understand the ramifications.


 parents here put their kids into debt at times to avoid doing it to themselves. Like putting phones and other bills in children's names. 

In truth, I live in a country of mostly circumcised men and I haven't heard a tale of botched circumcision yet save for the ones done by non-professional means. Unlike female circumcision it has actual advantages and isn't just some malicious way to make women more controllable.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 4, 2012)

Clearly they're just trying to get rid of the remaining Jews.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 4, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Unlike female circumcision it has actual advantages and isn't just some malicious way to make women more controllable.



Why are you perpetuating this bullshit? We've already informed you that these supposed advantages are for the most part a load of crock, and those advantages that do exist are both typically solvable by other means and irrelevant for an infant child.

Circumcision is very much a way to make men more controllable. Dry penises don't masturbate, and thus the survival of the tribe is guaranteed.

Also, you know that thing about HIV prevention? The explanation given is that foreskins have an abundance of Langerhans cells and that HIV enters the body through these. Well, female genitalia have those cells too. So if you want me to believe that circumcision has "actual advantages", then so does the female variant.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I disagree with you opinion in general but you're definitely logically consistent.  My problem is that your logical consistency isn't something I've seen in many others that oppose circumcision.



I've never had a piercing so I wouldn't know, but as I said I do believe that the hole grows back together.

I also doubt most people would think it's alright to get your underaged child a flesh tunnel.



> Some in this thread have said they remember that there was no pain in their circumcision.



I remember quite clearly that there was a lot of pain after my circumcision (not during of course, since it was performed in a hospital and not by some witch doctor).



> I'm not sure what you mean by "physical integrity".  What should be said is that your religious freedoms should only be limited by how much those religious freedoms could potentially harm others.  If circumcision is largely cosmetic, as you yourself have acknowledged, there really isn't a grounds for barring the religious practice of it.



It's the second article of our constitution:



> Article 2 [Personal freedoms]
> 
> (1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law.
> 
> (2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.



Religious freedoms should end where the rights of another start.



> I agree, but that doesn't lend weight to your argument.  Many consider that it represents what is unclean.  Others could cite statistics that show that cultures that circumcize get less disease and less cancer in their sexual organs than cultures that don't.
> 
> Those things don't matter.  *Does the circumcision destroy the rights of another? * The parent is allowed to decide on what happens to a child, even cosmetically or with things that have to do with health.  If you take this right from parents to protect a child from a procedure they may disagree with when they reach adulthood you're establishing that a potential opinion change trumps parental rights.



Yes, how many more times do I have to say that it violates the right to physical integrity? That's what the judge based his ruling on.

Again, circumcision is 100% unnecessary. Parents can only make decisions about their child's health when there is a necessity. You can't ask a doctor to remove your child's appendix or tonsils just because you feel like it.

The way you put it sounds like there's some decision to be made. There isn't, there is no imminent danger or benefit for infants, there is simply no reason whatsoever to do something to an infant without their consent if they could always just have the procedure done when they're adults.



> The hair example was bad, I agree.  I simply don't see vast injustice done here.  I do see limits on parental freedom.



Removing a perfectly functioning, perfectly normal part of the human body without a person's consent and without the ability to ever retrieve it is a vast injustice.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2012)

let's see, putting the child through excruciating pain in their cock for the sake of aesthetics, or risk their life with cirugical anesthetics for the sake of aesthetics?

I think parents should be allowed to put breast implants on new born girls aswell
Men prefer big boobs after all

Fucking logic man


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2012)

> Unlike female circumcision it has actual advantages and isn't just some malicious way to make women more controllable.



debunked in this thread, also, having a foreskin has actual advantages too, not to mention real ones
Sex crime is criminal


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> parents here put their kids into debt at times to avoid doing it to themselves. Like putting phones and other bills in children's names.



That's impossible in Germany, with good reason.



> In truth, I live in a country of mostly circumcised men and I haven't heard a tale of botched circumcision yet save for the ones done by non-professional means.



Which was never the argument I made.



> Unlike female circumcision it has actual advantages and isn't just some malicious way to make women more controllable.



Which was also never the argument. The advantages are virtually non-existent in first world countries and they're entirely non-existent during infancy, so you can scratch that off the list.


----------



## BAD BD (Jul 4, 2012)

good      .


----------



## Kotre (Jul 4, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> There are medical conditions that make circumcision the best treatment option?



Yes. My foreskin was unable to retract. Because the foreskin is very thin it would often tear slightly, making urination painful. Since the hole at the tip was so small (not much bigger than the opening of the urethra, if at all) cleaning it was impossible. Got it removed when I was 13 or so.

However, that is a piss poor argument for routine circumcision. Especially since I was, ya know able to give consent.


----------



## hammer (Jul 4, 2012)

Kotre said:


> However, that is a piss poor argument for routine circumcision. Especially since I was, ya know able to give consent.



actually, not at 13


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 4, 2012)

hammer said:


> actually, not at 13



Consent in the philosophical meaning, not the legal one.


----------



## Kotre (Jul 4, 2012)

hammer said:


> actually, not at 13



In the UK, there's actually no minimum age at which a child can give consent. If the child is considered to have sufficient understanding of the situation by the doctor then the parents cannot override them. There was a court ruling on this in 1985. 

Either way, I had a say in the decision (because I do have a good relationship with my mother who'd have signed the papers), I wanted it to be done and I walked in and out willingly. None of which is true for a baby.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 4, 2012)

Have fun having your dicks look like anteaters instead of dicks.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So wearing a tie (which is what I assume you mean) is somehow similar to maiming an infant for life...?



 There's plenty of culturally acceptable ways to maim a child, both literally and metaphorically speaking. Cutting off his foreskin is just one of them.

Quit acting like you give a crap about it. You just want to attack something that doesn't align with what you want.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> There's plenty of culturally acceptable ways to maim a child, both literally and metaphorically speaking. Cutting off his foreskin is just one of them.



Name some others.



> Quit acting like you give a crap about it. You just want to attack something that doesn't align with what you want.



Quit arguing like an elementary student.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2012)

> There's plenty of culturally acceptable ways to maim a child



This is one of those sentences you don't expect to wake up in the morning and and know that at some point someone is going to say something so ridiculous as that with a straight fucking face.


----------



## Syed (Jul 4, 2012)

Proud my dick is circumcised.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Name some others.



Rampant promotion of materialism through the constant marketing they are often subjected to.

An idiotic popular culture that prizes stupidity and popularity over virtue and knowledge. Talent over hard work. 


Food that is laced with harmful or mysterious chemicals that parent's with little money are forced to feed their children.

Messed up air, due to pollution.

Mindless tv shows that promote questionable activities.

Pharmaceuticals

And the biggest trick of them all: Convincing them that they are somehow better off than everyone else simply because their standard of living is higher. 


The result: fat kids with overconfidence in their lack of literacy and love for Katy Perry with their foreskin in tact. 


Not to mention the whole abortion issue, which I think is a legitimate controversy regardless of what side you fall on. 



> Quit arguing like an elementary student.



Very good Saufsoldat. Very good.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Syed said:


> Proud my dick is circumcised.



 and... that's fine, nobody wants to stop people from getting circumcised, we just don't want someone to be able to force someone else to get circumcised. 



Descent of the Lion said:


> Rampant promotion of materialism through the constant marketing they are often subjected to.
> 
> An idiotic popular culture that prizes stupidity and popularity over virtue and knowledge.
> 
> ...



Scanning text for described instances of maiming... Nope, nothing. Now kindly remove your cranium from your rectum.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Scanning text for described instances of maiming... Nope, nothing. Now kindly remove your cranium from your rectum.



I said metaphorically and literally. Reading is fundamental.


Physical: Adderall and Ritalin.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 4, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> I said metaphorically *and literally*. Reading is fundamental.



Yeah, I mainly wanted the literal ones, otherwise we just get the kind of retarded nonsense you just posted.

So fire away, name a few instances of culturally sanctified, literal maiming besides circumcision.



Descent of the Lion said:


> Physical: Adderall and Ritalin.



Both of which treat disorders and neither of which maims a person.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yeah, I mainly wanted the literal ones, otherwise we just get the kind of retarded nonsense you just posted.
> 
> So fire away, name a few instances of culturally sanctified, literal maiming besides circumcision.



lol. Thanks for the clarification . And I guess by retarded nonsense you mean legit areas where a culture is complicit in disabling children in one way or the other (mostly for financial benefit). I guess poisoning mind and body isn't the same because it doesn't involve cutting of the all important skin flaps. Lawd we needz dem skin flaps. 




> Both of which treat disorders and neither of which maims a person.



Cutting off a limb can be used to treat disorders, doesn't change the fact that the person will be limbless. 





This is to treat a mental condition, mind you. Not a cancer. The goal is to alter the brain to make the person better to get along with and more productive. which is funny considering that the people that originally circumcised probably did it for perceived benefits as well.


By the way, I'm humoring you in neglecting to question your use of the word maim. Though it may be technically true that a circumcised person is left without a part of his body, is it acceptable to even use such a strong word for it? Or is that just text book sensationalism? Female circumcision, I can understand.

I'm not even defending the practice so much as attacking the notion that the west somehow has evolved past effecting people's lives without their consent. That's all they do. Their barbarisms are just more nuanced and sophisticated, but no different.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Rampant promotion of materialism through the constant marketing they are often subjected to.
> 
> An idiotic popular culture that prizes stupidity and popularity over virtue and knowledge. Talent over hard work.
> 
> ...



Fixed for you

Also, some people need  pharmaceuticals btw


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Fixed for you
> 
> Also, some people need  pharmaceuticals btw



True in some cases, but need in this instance is subjective. The question isn't whether or not kids should survive cancer, it's whether or not treating ADHD with Schedule II narcotics is akin to blowing up a loose nail with c4.

The point is that it is socially acceptable, when it can just as easily be framed as detrimental.


----------



## Light Bringer (Jul 4, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Y'all should read this though, if you are interested in saving pure and unmaimed penises.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 4, 2012)

> The point is that it is socially acceptable, when it can just as easily be framed as detrimental.


It's socially acceptable, and detrimental

The same way cutting clits and labias in the middle east is socially acceptable and detrimental for them


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> It's socially acceptable, and detrimental
> 
> The same way cutting clits and labias in the middle east is socially acceptable and detrimental for them



Then you agree with me.





^^lol foreskin man.


----------



## Narkissos (Jul 4, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> Circumcision is grievous for jews too. They'd rather sew more on top than give away.





Are you fucking kidding me bro? In Judaism, circumcision is regarded as a commandment from God. 

Genesis 17:10
This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 4, 2012)

Reading the OP of this thread would give most people in the world a "It took them that long to realize that?"
However, reading the rest of this thread with stupid shit like "lolz anteater dix!" makes me lose some faith in humanity. It just goes to show that people are willing to mutilate newborns for things they haven't a clue about.


----------



## Gecka (Jul 4, 2012)

Anybody else remember that article about Germans still not liking the jewish even now?

Because I sure do.


----------



## Light Bringer (Jul 4, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Have fun having your dicks look like anteaters instead of dicks.



Whatever helps you sleep at night.

For me it's as simple as this: if you came at my dick with a knife/scalpel/scissor/lightsaber you better fucking have my permission. A newborn shouldn't be forced into it, just because they can't give informed consent doesn't really make it okay. Yeah, it may be harmless, but it's also an irreversible process.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 4, 2012)

Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that anteater.


----------



## eHav (Jul 4, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that anteater.



it works for millions of people. if the reason you pull chicks/dudes is simply how pretty your dick looks then something must be wrong with ya


----------



## Narkissos (Jul 4, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that anteater.



^Virginity is strong with this one.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jul 4, 2012)

circumcision is a bunch of bullshit. fools deciding to worship a bunch of bullshit shouldn't be allowed to mash up their kids in physically permanent way in a civilized first world society. this religious bullshit is going too far. i have had enough.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jul 4, 2012)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> circumcision is a bunch of bullshit. fools deciding to worship a bunch of bullshit shouldn't be allowed to mash up their kids in physically permanent way in a civilized first world society. this religious bullshit is going too far. i have had enough.



I laughed.  Dude you're acting like this is the first time you ever heard it. 


WHAT DEYZ CUTTING FORESKINS NOW!?



Anyway. . .what civilized world?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 4, 2012)

eHav said:


> it works for millions of people. if the reason you pull chicks/dudes is simply how pretty your dick looks then something must be wrong with ya



My dick is just that impressive 



Narkissos said:


> ^Virginity is strong with this one.



Cool comeback. Completely original and true and shit.


----------



## Light Bringer (Jul 4, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that anteater.



You are ironically sensitive about this issue 

No one is making fun of your wang, get over it.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 4, 2012)

It's called trolling


----------



## Karsh (Jul 4, 2012)

eHav said:


> it works for millions of people. if the reason you pull chicks/dudes is simply how pretty your dick looks then something must be wrong with ya



Does that technically mean that over 6 billion people are circumcized?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 5, 2012)

Gecka said:


> Anybody else remember that article about Germans still not liking the jewish even now?
> 
> Because I sure do.



You mean the bullshit about "latent anti-semitism" which included things like "using jew as an insult"? Yeah no, not gonna work here.

If you want to accuse someone of anti-semitism here, it should be those who are okay with infant circumcision. After all, they're the ones who want the practice of genital mutilation among Jews to continue.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 5, 2012)

Light Bringer said:


> You are ironically sensitive about this issue
> 
> No one is making fun of your wang, get over it.



I am. I declare my healthy, naturally powerful dick > all other dicks in this thread, especially the mutilated appendages.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that anteater.



Works for billions of people. 
Good luck pulling chicks/dudes with that pole o' scars.



eHav said:


> it works for *b*illions of people. if the reason you pull chicks/dudes is simply how pretty your dick looks then something must be wrong with ya



Fixed.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

I can't believe people argue so damn much about foreskin.

I could care less my parents cut it off or not, but some of you treating it like I'm some mutated freak, kindly step off.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Nah, people are treating the issue like parents don't have the right to remove a healthy and important organ in the name of tradition or aesthetics from someone who doesn't consent to it.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Really. Because I had my foreskin removed and could care less for it.

There are a lot of others, and I would say most could care less their foreskin was removed. It's just the people who make a big deal out of it and brand them as mutated freaks childishly because they want to feel like the ones who have "better organs"

Mature.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Nah, people are treating the issue like parents don't have the right to remove a healthy and *important *organ in the name of tradition or aesthetics from someone who doesn't consent to it.




LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2012)

Light Bringer said:


> You are ironically sensitive about this issue
> 
> No one is making fun of your wang, get over it.



No they're just saying it's mutilated, which is possibly worse than just making fun of it.

The thing is that you only see uncircumcised men whine about this, it's probably because they want the rest of our dicks to look as ridiculous as theirs.

And there seems to be a fair share of the atheist whiners in here to complain about the tradition because it was usually religious. Ah, NF has it all.


----------



## αce (Jul 5, 2012)

> it's probably because they want the rest of our dicks to look as ridiculous as theirs.



If I'm gonna agree on anything it's uncircumsized dicks look like horror.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Really. Because I had my foreskin removed and could care less for it.
> 
> There are a lot of others, and I would say most could care less their foreskin was removed. It's just the people who make a big deal out of it and brand them as mutated freaks childishly because they want to feel like the ones who have "better organs"
> 
> Mature.



Oh for fuck's sake...

For the last time: *It is not about preference.*

This is about whether or not parents should be allowed to force *their* preference about foreskin on infants for the rest of their lives.

Many men find big boobs attractive, but nobody would argue for breast implants in infants.

If you think that circumcision looks good, then you can get the procedure done as a consenting adult. It's that easy and nobody here would try to stop you.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No they're just saying it's mutilated, which is possibly worse than just making fun of it.



Take a look at a dictionary, circumcision is literally mutilation of the penis.



> The thing is that you only see uncircumcised men whine about this, it's probably because they want the rest of our dicks to look as ridiculous as theirs.



I'm circumcised, your point is now null and void.



> And there seems to be a fair share of the atheist whiners in here to complain about the tradition because it was usually religious. Ah, NF has it all.



And your usual whining about atheists. Couldn't make a post without adding that, could you?


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 5, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> If I'm gonna agree on anything it's uncircumsized dicks look like horror.



 .com/a/Yqphs

If you are so sure that it's intact dicks that look like horror, feel free to reassemble that link.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh for fuck's sake...
> 
> For the last time: *It is not about preference.*
> 
> ...



If atheists would stop whining about religion I wouldn't have to. Truth be told most Americans don't get circumcised because the Bible said it and most of the countries we're talking about don't do it for that reason--in fact you being circumcised later is proof of that. 

And why should parents do it? Because it will hurt like a bitch and we'd remember it otherwise.


----------



## Glued (Jul 5, 2012)

I was circumcsized a day after my birth.

could care less


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Really. Because I had my foreskin removed and could care less for it.
> 
> There are a lot of others, and I would say most could care less their foreskin was removed. It's just the people who make a big deal out of it and brand them as mutated freaks childishly because they want to feel like the ones who have "better organs"
> 
> Mature.




Talk about strawmannin, Flow. But that's all you can do. In case you didn't notice, this is a thread about how newborns shouldn't be forced into a cosmetic surgery that has medical consequences. 

The normal penis is superior to a circumcised one on a purely medical basis. As for aesthetics, that's something for an adult to decide with his own body, not for others to force upon.

Not to mention, the other 6.7 billion people on this planet that don't live in backwards USA think a circumcised penis is mutilated and deformed. It's all about what you're around. 
But just to re-iterate, this isn't a topic of what looks best and what doesn't. It's about can you force a surgery on an newborn that has medical consequences because of aesthetics? If you think that's okay, then you'd be fine with less-dangerous procedures on newborns like breast augmentations and the likes. At least giving a newborn a breast augmentation doesn't destroy an organ that's important for a person's health and function.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Talk about strawmannin, Flow. But that's all you can do. In case you didn't notice, this is a thread about how newborns shouldn't be forced into a cosmetic surgery that has medical consequences.
> 
> The normal penis is superior to a circumcised one on a purely medical basis. As for aesthetics, that's something for an adult to decide with his own body, not for others to force upon.
> 
> ...



The backwards USA? Oh come off it you fucking troll.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The backwards USA? Oh come off it you fucking troll.



USA backwards is ASU... Lots of mutilated Jews and Muslims at that school... Poor kids...


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The backwards USA? Oh come off it you fucking troll.



I'm sorry, I often interchange the words "backwards," "traditional," "conservative," and "Living in the dark ages."

[sp=Use of metric system][/sp]

Not to get derailed. 
But this is relevant because the USA is a country that's willing to place tradition (like circumcision) over progress in areas like medicine, human rights, and all the other good ones.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The backwards USA? Oh come off it you fucking troll.


Name the advantages of this practice since you consider it so  non-backwards. From what I've read from your posts, aesthetics has been  your only argument.

I reckon you agree that an involuntary surgery should have significant reasons for being performed consistently given the fact that statistics show complications do occur?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> I'm sorry, I often interchange the words "backwards," "traditional," "conservative," and "Living in the dark ages."
> 
> [sp=Use of metric system][/sp]
> 
> ...



That's not relevant because it effects nothing in the day to day lives of people, if you don't like the standard system stay the fuck out of the country. We still measure things with both, but a lot of standard measurements are just easier to use and it's what we're used to. It's not progress, it's just what you like better, like most of the stuff around here people bitch about. 



perman07 said:


> Name the advantages of this practice since you consider it so  non-backwards. From what I've read from your posts, aesthetics has been  your only argument.
> 
> I reckon you agree that an involuntary surgery should have significant reasons for being performed consistently given the fact that statistics show complications do occur?



Actually, the cleaning thing still stands but most of you go "that just takes a few seconds" also foreskin can rip and it's ultra painful. Another thing you all ignore. You're not going to convince me or a lot of people that risk of infection from improper cleaning (which a lot of people already do anyway) and risk of ripping is not beneficial.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If atheists would stop whining about religion I wouldn't have to. Truth be told most Americans don't get circumcised because the Bible said it and most of the countries we're talking about don't do it for that reason--in fact you being circumcised later is proof of that.



Which is entirely irrelevant to any argument I've made here. I never said it's wrong because it's a religious idea, I said it's wrong because it's done without consent. 



> And why should parents do it? Because it will hurt like a bitch and we'd remember it otherwise.



It hurts like a bitch either way and what kind of fucked up reasoning is that? I could apply it to female circumcision as well. If we cut off a girl's clit after birth, she won't remember it later.

How is that an argument for maiming a person without their consent?


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not relevant because it effects nothing in the day to day lives of people,



My soup can's serving size is labeled in imperial ounces. But the nutritional information is all metric grams and milligrams. 



> if you don't like the standard system stay the fuck out of the country.


"If you don't like it in this country, go to another country." probably has Washington spinning in his grave.



> We still measure things with both, but a lot of standard measurements are just easier to use and it's what we're used to. It's not progress, it's just what you like better, like most of the stuff around here people bitch about.



How the fuck is the imperial system easier to use then the metric? I don't know anyone who could tell me how many feet are in a mile, or which is smaller, a 7/16" drill bit or a 1/4" one. Sure people with math skills know, but running around a home improvement store is hilarious in this regard. Oh, and cooking is great too. How many teaspoons are in a tablespoon? How many ounces are in a cup? Cups in a gallon? Ounces in a pound? What the hell is a "slug?"

And to get back on topic, most people think it's best if people don't force other people into cosmetic surgeries that have medical consequences and, as OP says, causes a "grevious wound."



Saufsoldat said:


> Which is entirely irrelevant to any argument I've made here. I never said it's wrong because it's a religious idea, I said it's wrong because it's done without consent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seriously, Sauf, fucking this.

And this just reminded me: What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why don't you get it? What's not to understand?
Why allow people to force other people into cosmetic surgeries with PERMANENT medical consequences? How the fuck can that be allowed? What's not to get? Just because you were circumcised is NOT a reason to allow this. Just because you don't know any different and felt no pain as a newborn is NOT a reason for this to be legal. These are the most insane arguments I've read in the cafe in a long time. They top the Homo Debate threads.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Oh for fuck's sake...



Yes, for fucks sake. 



> For the last time: *It is not about preference.*



It's about

"My organs are better than yours! HAHA! You got your dick mutilated, freak!"

Is the issue I was pointing at. If you're saying it's a black/white issue, it's not. Especially if this post wasn't even directed towards you.

EDIT:

Hah, the old "if you clean the dick right you won't get an infection!"

I know someone who was very careful with their babies, cleaned and bathed them everyday. Eventually their child got an infection down in that area, and eventually got the foreskin removed because of it.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Yes, for fucks sake.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the BH Penis thread.
I suggest you don't skip over my post that dismantles your strawman. Here, let me quote it for you


> In case you [Flow] didn't notice, this is a thread about how newborns shouldn't be forced into a cosmetic surgery that has medical consequences.
> 
> The normal penis is superior to a circumcised one on a purely medical basis. As for aesthetics, that's something for an adult to decide with his own body, not for others to force upon.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh right, you should check out CTK's post. About foreskin ripping and falling apart. 

I didn't even get to that yet.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 5, 2012)

Ben Grimm said:


> I was circumcsized a day after my birth.
> 
> *could care less*



Because you claim it is possible for you to care less than you care now that means you now care more than you would care if you would care less. Ie: You actually care.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Oh right, you should check out CTK's post. About foreskin ripping and falling apart.
> 
> I didn't even get to that yet.



Oh right, you didn't respond to my criticism. And oh right, no medical organization in the world, except politics-first WHO, supports circumcision. 
And, oh right, the rate of complication from circumcision is ~40% in US hospitals. Oh right, you should check out my posts way back when, about accidental penile amputations, infections, and crazy skin deformities from circumcision which are not rare in the least bit. Oh right, while you're at it, you can try to forget all the important functions of the foreskin and it's structure since it's inconvenient for your self-image and argument. And oh right, and since foreskins sometimes get caught in machinery and torn off means that's a reason to get circumcised. I guess we should start cutting off Baby's fingers so dogs don't bite them off. And while we're at it, let's got off another organ that's equally as important: Your eyelids.

But, oh right, you have your eyelids, you "know the difference" between the two, and as such it's suddenly bad. But, oh right, somehow it's becomes okay if it's done on newborns so they can't consent and "won't know any better." 

And oh right, since no medical organizations support it because it's absolutely batshit insane and has no benefits, it's a completely cosmetic procedure and carries common medical consequences and some serious and lethal complications.

Stop dodging it, Flow. Not replying and pretending you didn't read it doesn't make it not exist. Why are you supporting a tradition of removing important organs from newborns in a practice that has medical consequences solely for tradition and cosmetics in a way that deliberately oversteps their own right to their own bodies?


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

It's about as important as the tail bone. 

Will respond to your tl;dr shortly. In fact, I don't even have to respond to it. Just go more in detail.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> It's about as important as the tail bone.


Naw mate, the tail bone is VITAL to your survival. Remove the coccyx from someone, and they'll never walk again.

Bad example. But you should know that just because the foreskin isn't VITAL, doesn't mean it's not important. The eyelids are not vital. You can see without them, just like a penis can work without the foreskin. Of course, since you have eyelids, you immediately know the importance of the eyelids when you try to hold your eyes open for an extended period of time. Your glans are no different, and no normal male wouldn't be aware of the difference once he let his bare glans touch the fabric of his underwear or been exposed to the air for an extended period of time.

But you never knew the difference, and luckily for you, the body is able to compensate somewhat for the fucked up practice you support. Fabric doesn't hurt your glans because your glans have hardened, the surface thickened, and the nerves near the surface died. Your eyes would do the same given the same amount of time if the eyelids were removed after birth. 



> Will respond to your tl;dr shortly. *In fact, I don't even have to respond to it.* Just go more in detail.



Nice, so you're in a debate but yet just admitted to being unwilling to take criticism? I'm happy you're willing to plug your ears when you hear injustices done against you, and pretend that it's all fine so you just go off and repeat those injustices on someone else.
Humans: Some less so than others.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> But you never knew the difference, and luckily for you, the body is able to compensate somewhat for the fucked up practice you support. Fabric doesn't hurt your glans because your glans have hardened, the surface thickened, and the nerves near the surface died. Your eyes would do the same given the same amount of time if the eyelids were removed after birth.



Huh... Did not know circumcised people couldn't feel any sexual pleasure. How awful


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 5, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Huh... Did not know circumcised people couldn't feel any sexual pleasure. How awful



But that's not what he said.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh well that is good. What exactly did he say? It sounded like he was talking about removing your eye lids so the nerves in your eyes die and that being the same thing as forced violent removal of the foreskin. My bad. Sorry.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Huh... Did not know circumcised people couldn't feel any sexual pleasure. How awful


Never said that.



Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> But that's not what he said.


Thank you.



Oil Can said:


> Oh well that is good. What exactly did he say? It sounded like he was talking about removing your eye lids so the nerves in your eyes die and that being the same thing as forced violent removal of the foreskin. My bad. Sorry.


You could just read what I said. I said the nerves near the surface die. Let me just copy and paste from earlier in the thread so that I give you more detail.



			
				Toro said:
			
		

> Should I even mention that the glans of the penis doesn't actually get much sensation.
> In a normal male, ~70% of all the nerves in the penis are in the foreskin, with 100% of all the pleasure-only sensing nerves (erogenous nerves) being in the foreskin. The glans only have general nerve endings like somatic skin cells, it's actually because the brain attributes them to pleasure that they actually feel pleasurable, but they aren't purpose built for pleasure. No, the foreskin's nerves are purpose built for pleasure, and it's because of how the erogenous nerves are wired to the other nerves in the penis that providing sensation to the foreskin not only makes your foreskin feel pleasurable, but because nature decided to take some short-cuts on wiring, it also makes your glans feel pleasurable even with no sensation directly.
> 
> I already mentioned how removal of the foreskin destroys it's primary purpose of protecting the nerves in the glans and the underside of the foreskin and thus causes the glans to harden to compensate which kills many of the nerves left inside, but circumcised males are only able to feel pleasure because of the local attribution of those nerves, whether or not those nerves are sending pain, touch, or temperature signals doesn't matter when aroused.
> ...


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Bad example. But you should know that just because the foreskin isn't VITAL, doesn't mean it's not important. The eyelids are not vital. You can see without them, just like a penis can work without the foreskin. Of course, since you have eyelids, you immediately know the importance of the eyelids when you try to hold your eyes open for an extended period of time. Your glans are no different, and no normal male wouldn't be aware of the difference once he let his bare glans touch the fabric of his underwear or been exposed to the air for an extended period of time.



I've known plenty of people actually and some even stated in the discussion at one point that they wished it was removed so that way they wouldn't have to go through procedures to have it removed at their age. 

It's too tiresome for them to pull back the skin and wash it, and how sensitive the area was. 


> But you never knew the difference, and luckily for you, the body is able to compensate somewhat for the fucked up practice you support. Fabric doesn't hurt your glans because your glans have hardened, the surface thickened, and the nerves near the surface died. Your eyes would do the same given the same amount of time if the eyelids were removed after birth.




No, lol. This is you jumping to conclusions. I never said I supported the practice.

I could care less for it.




> Nice, so you're in a debate but yet just admitted to being unwilling to take criticism? I'm happy you're willing to plug your ears when you hear injustices done against you, and pretend that it's all fine so you just go off and repeat those injustices on someone else.
> Humans: Some less so than others.



Because I never met a person who was circumcised to say "WAAAH WAAAH WHY U TAKE MY FORESKIN OFFF WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WAAAAAH"


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> I've known plenty of people actually and some even stated in the discussion at one point that they wished it was removed so that way they wouldn't have to go through procedures to have it removed at their age.



Really? Because the only people I know that remotely said anything like that were commenting that they were circumcised at birth, and prefer it that way instead of now.



> It's too tiresome for them to pull back the skin and wash it, and how sensitive the area was.


What the fuck are you talking about? If you've never had a foreskin, I suggest you not tell me how it works. It the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics, "The best care for the normal uncircumcised penis is no care at all."
Oh, and if people are too "tiresome" to bathe at least once a week or so, then they have other problems.




> No, lol. This is you jumping to conclusions. I never said I supported the practice.


Oh good, then you think that infant circumcision should be illegal because people don't have the right to make that choice for someone else.



> I could care less for it.


So you do care? 



> Because I never met a person who was circumcised to say "WAAAH WAAAH WHY U TAKE MY FORESKIN OFFF WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY WAAAAAH"


I have. All of them were circumcised later in life and regret it because they knew what it was like before and because of people like you, they had unrealistic expectations.
Furthermore, I do know a few people who were circumcised at birth and hate it. So many people in fact that malpractice insurance companies don't cover that procedure anymore because they are tired of being sued when that male grows up and goes to court asking why a doctor failed to take his best health into consideration. 

Likewise, I don't know many born-blind people that complain either. I guess it's being blind is fine then, huh? 

And based on the way you act here, Flow, I don't blame people for not talking about serious and important issues in the world.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

> In other words, circumcised males can only feel pleasure because the brain has evolved to know that there's a huge amount of pleasure sensory in that region and is so used to reading those signals as pleasure during arousal that it interprets them all as such.
> Of course. This also shuts off many of the pain reception gates so that circumcised males can't feel if they are hurting themselves until a certain point which is much more severe than normal males.



So wait; does that mean circumcised guys will last longer because they feel less? Is that good or bad? I wonder if there's a study on premature ejaculation and circumcision...

Sorry off-topic.

I guess its a question of what you consider mutilation. I suspect a lot of people consider it a modification. As to whether or not parents have the right to force this on their kids, depends on how important you consider religion. I think you have to give parents the right to choose based on their religion. If its a cultural thing, I don't really like the idea of forcing your own way on someone else. Then again, I also don't think we should interfere in other cultures to "protect" them or whatever so this might be just a complete and utter philosophical difference. Obviously, that part of Germany doesn't think so highly of religion. I'm from the US and freedom of religion is considered pretty important here so I can't really imagine a ruling like that ever popping up, but I guess less likely things have happened. Either way, I don't think its particularly an important issue, but hey, I wasn't circumcised.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Really? Because the only people I know that remotely said anything like that were commenting that they were circumcised at birth, and prefer it that way instead of now.



Same vice versa, and it's something you don't understand.



> What the fuck are you talking about? If you've never had a foreskin, I suggest you not tell me how it works. It the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics, "The best care for the normal uncircumcised penis is no care at all."
> Oh, and if people are too "tiresome" to bathe at least once a week or so, then they have other problems.



Lol, I like how you automatically assume they "didn't bathe". No, they did clean it but your reading comprehension failed you. They stated they hated how SENSITIVE the area was, and that they didn't want to have to pull back to clean the area.




> Oh good, then you think that infant circumcision should be illegal because people don't have the right to make that choice for someone else.
> 
> 
> So you do care?



I could care less for it, and I don't have an opinion for it. Because I don't have a foreskin and could care less if someone decides to remove it to prevent diseases (I know people who have received them) or to keep it for sexual pleasure. 



> I have. All of them were circumcised later in life and regret it because they knew what it was like before and because of people like you, they had unrealistic expectations.



sure. 



> And based on the way you act here, Flow, I don't blame people for not talking about serious and important issues in the world.



The way I act here? Are you talking about this forum in general? Because I'm sure you're a saint.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> So wait; does that mean circumcised guys will last longer because they feel less? Is that good or bad? I wonder if there's a study on premature ejaculation and circumcision...



Actually, no. How much stimulation you need for orgasm is a brain-based thing, not a sensory thing. Hence nocturnal emissions.



> I guess its a question of what you consider mutilation. I suspect a lot of people consider it a modification.


I would consider temporary changes a modification. Like a temporary tattoo. That's fine for a newborn. But when you completely destroy and organ with intent to damage another organ's function (Hello Kellogg) that's mutilation if I've ever heard of it.

Mutilation: Inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on. Germans called it a "grevious wound", the British called it, "Radical and destructive" the Americans called it, "Unfounded and morally questionable."
Call it what you want, it's still the same.



> As to whether or not parents have the right to force this on their kids, depends on how important you consider religion. I think you have to give parents the right to choose based on their religion.



Most nations don't allow indoctrination. Also, religion should not be considered when considering health.



> If its a cultural thing, I don't really like the idea of forcing your own way on someone else. Then again, I also don't think we should interfere in other cultures to "protect" them or whatever so this might be just a complete and utter philosophical difference.



United Nations General Assembly: Convention on the Rights of the Child said,
?States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children? (Article 24.3)



> Obviously, that part of Germany doesn't think so highly of religion.


And we don't think highly of the religions that circumcised females. Despite, medically, both male and female circumcision are in the same book of bad.



> I'm from the US and freedom of religion is considered pretty important here so I can't really imagine a ruling like that ever popping up, but I guess less likely things have happened. Either way, I don't think its particularly an important issue, but hey, I wasn't circumcised.


Medicare doesn't cover circumcision, because the AAP put it's foot down on the issue. That incident primed the AAFP to flip flop on the issue and come out against circumcision, the last medical organization in the US to do so.



Flow said:


> Same vice versa, and it's something you don't understand.


What I don't understand is what the hell you are talking about here.



> Lol, I like how you automatically assume they "didn't bathe". No, they did clean it but your reading comprehension failed you. They stated they hated how SENSITIVE the area was, and that they didn't want to have to pull back to clean the area.


Who stated this? I've never met anyone who said they didn't enjoy it. And I did a fucking thesis on the issue and interviewed people. Sorry to break it to you, Flow. But humans and mammals in general have survived with foreskins for millions of years. If it was so bad, it wouldn't have come about. And just so you know, Flow. "Tiredsome" washing of the foreskin equates to standing in a shower or in water. Just the act of being in water or having water running over it is enough to dissolve any kind of "horror" that lurks. I guess those people also have plenty of acne from the oils of their hair leeching onto their faces because if they can't stand in a shower to clean their foreskin, god fucking forbid they pick up a bottle of shampoo.



> I could care less for it,


So you do care  You obviously care enough to post about it.



> and I don't have an opinion for it. Because I don't have a foreskin and could care less if someone decides to remove it to prevent diseases (I know people who have received them) or to keep it for sexual pleasure.


Circumcision doesn't prevent disease, and can cause disease.



> The way I act here? Are you talking about this forum in general? Because I'm sure you're a saint.



I research stuff before I open my mouth on an issue.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> What I don't understand is what the hell you are talking about here.



Not surprised. 



> Who stated this? I've never met anyone who said they didn't enjoy it. And I did a fucking thesis




People I know, and have heard. 


oh WATCH OUT. HE DID A THESIS!



> on the issue and interviewed people.




Right, and I'm Aragon from lord of the rings. Mind posting this thesis and a video and alleged names from these "people"? Other wise, I know fucking millions of people who sent me an email said they would never want their foreskin and personally asked me to remove it for them.



> Sorry to break it to you, Flow. But humans and mammals in general have survived with foreskins for millions of years. If it was so bad, it wouldn't have come about. And just so you know, Flow. "Tiredsome" washing of the foreskin equates to standing in a shower or in water. Just the act of being in water or having water running over it is enough to dissolve any kind of "horror" that lurks. I guess those people also have plenty of acne from the oils of their hair leeching onto their faces because if they can't stand in a shower to clean their foreskin, god fucking forbid they pick up a bottle of shampoo.



WOW. 

I can't believe you HONESTLY believe running water over foreskin is enough to "remove" any type of diseases that can affect the dick. But then again, what do I care? It's not like you're me, or that you would be the father of my child. I'll be SURE to teach my children proper hygiene, and could care LESS if they had their foreskins removed or not. I wouldn't treat them like mutated freaks like you and some of the other posters have been doing here. 


> So you do care  You obviously care enough to post about it.




I just enjoy debunking people on a high horse. 



> Circumcision doesn't prevent disease, and can cause disease.



Uh, ya don't say. 

If not done properly, and not cleansed. I'm sure it's not as easy to get a disease with a circumcised dick which is easy to clean with one that is not cut.  



> I research stuff before I open my mouth on an issue.



So do I, but I don't act like I need a medal for it. Thanks for letting me know though.


----------



## eHav (Jul 5, 2012)

dicks are serious business


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 5, 2012)

*Shrug*

Difference in philosophy, man. You obviously have put a lot of effort into researching this stuff. The main disagreement I have is that I think you downplay the significance of religion to a lot of people and ultimately, that's what this debate really is about; how important is religion? I don't think its fair to make decisions for different cultures; that includes things that we may look down on.

I highly doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind so I'll just say I appreciate the time you've put into answering my questions and responding.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

eHav said:


> dicks are serious business



All heil the dick slicer. ALL heil KING OF CIRCUMCISION


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jul 5, 2012)

Oh no, I was grieviously harmed as a baby, I need a shoulder to cry on to deal with this repressed trauma.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

^ Glad some people are starting to see how silly it is to research and debate over something most people could care less about.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Not surprised.


Cool response. I'm sure you'll walk away feeling like you've "won that argument" because I didn't reply to it for I had and still have no clue what you're talking about.



> People I know, and have heard.


You really do only hear the things you want to hear. You said that "they said it." Who are they?


> oh WATCH OUT. HE DID A THESIS!


Yeah, watch out. Toro did research on a topic he's debating on. God fucking save us for we did none and yet we're still trying to debate!



> Right, and I'm Aragon from lord of the rings. Mind posting this thesis and a video and alleged names from these "people"? Other wise, I know fucking millions of people who sent me an email said they would never want their foreskin and personally asked me to remove it for them.


Nah, I don't post my entire work on the interwebz where it'll be stolen. Not to ignore your statement about your million friends, but I'm laughing too hard at the prospect. Here's my sources for the updated version:

[sp]Fleiss, Paul M., and Frederick M. Hodges. "What Doctors Don't Tell You About Circumcision." MENsight Magazine. N.p., 2008. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. <http://mensightmagazine.com/Articles/Fleiss,%20M.%20Paul/tellaboutcirc.htm>. 
Romberg, Rosemary. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1985. N. pag. Print. 
E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pag. 442-448. Print
Bigelow, Jim. The Joy of Uncircumcising! 2nd ed. Aptos, CA: Hourglass Book, 1994. N. pag. Print. 
"Sexual activity and prostate cancer risk in men diagnosed at a younger age." Wiley Interscience. BJU International, 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121510647/abstract>. 
"Masturbation." Livestrong. N.p., 18 Nov. 2009. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/12461-masturbation/>. 
Duffy, Michael, James Carney, and Adam Zagorin. "Getting Out the Wrecking Ball." Time 19 Dec. 1994: 1-2. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982008,00.html>. 
Kirby, Douglas. "Emerging Answers 2007." The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. N.p., Nov. 2007. Web. 6 May 2010. <http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/EA2007_full.pdf>.
Spock, Benjamin. "Circumcision - It's Not Necessary." Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Redbook, Apr. 1989. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/spock.html>. 
Shapiro, Ellen. "American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statements on Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infection." MedReviews (1999). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1477524/>. 
John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295
National Cancer Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/penile>. 
"American Academy of Family Physicians: Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision." (2007). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/circumcision.html>. 
Gellis, Sydney. "Deaths from Circumcision." American Journal of Diseases of Children (1978): 3 pars. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gellis1/>.
Wrong Diagnosis: Prevalence and Incidence of Prostate Cancer. N.p., 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prostate_cancer/prevalence.htm>.
"Australia's Health 2004." (2004). AIHW National Mortality. Web. 1 May 2010. 
Circumcision Deaths/Disasters. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deaths-d.htm>.
Ray, Mary. "Circumcision Complications." Mothers Against Circumcison. N.p., 17 Oct. 1998. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/botch.htm>. 
Milos, Marilyn F., and Donna Macris. "Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?" Nurse-Midwifery 37.2 (1992): 87S-96S. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/>. 
"The use of male circumcision to prevent hiv infection." DOC (2008). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html>. 
"Circumcision & HIV." AVERT. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm>. 
Howe, Van. "Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis." International Journal of STD & AIDS 10 (1999): 8-16. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/>. 
Dowsett, Gary W., and Murray Couch. "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Is There Really Enough of the Right Kind of Evidence." Reproductive Health Matters 15.29 (2007): 33-44. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dowsett2007/>. 
"Urology." Medhelp. N.p., 6 Aug. 1998. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Urology/urine/show/912545?forums=forums>. 
"Urinary Tract Infection (UTI)." Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. N.p., 27 June 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/urinary-tract-infection/DS00286/DSECTION=lifestyle-and-home-remedies>. 
Goldman, Michael, Joseph Barr, Tsvy Bistritzer, and Mordechay Aladjem. "URINARY TRACT INFECTION FOLLOWING RITUAL JEWISH CIRCUMCISION." Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 32.11 (1996): 1098-1204. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/goldman/>. 
"Circumcision Policy Statement." Academy of American Pediatrics 103.3 (1999): 686-93. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686>. 
U.S. Circumcision Statistics. N.p., 25 May 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/>. 
Acroposthion. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.acroposthion.com/acroposthion_002.htm>. 
Infocirc. N.p., 2004. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.infocirc.org/townsend/problem.htm>. 
Foreskin Restoration for circumcised males. N.p., 2006. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/pages/restore.html>. 
Naimer, Sody. "Managament of penile skin bridges." Journal of the American Board Of Family Medicine 15.6 (2002). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/reprint/15/6/485>. 
"Circumcision Glossary." Fathering Magazine. N.p., 1998. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/circ-glossary/>.
Payne, Roy. "Circumcision Glossary." Non-Surgical Foreskin Restoration. N.p., Mar. 2001. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.iomfats.org/resources/restoring/media/restoring_faq.pdf>. 
"Children's Rights." Human Rights Joint Commitee. N.p., Feb. 2009. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/157/157we37.htm>. 
Association for Genital Integrity. N.p., 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.courtchallenge.com/>. 
"Neonatal Circumcision Revisited." Canadian Paediatric Society (2009). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm>. 
Skerritt, Jen. "MD disciplined after wrong baby circumcised." Winnipeg Free Press 6 July 2006. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/news/winnipegfreepress2006-07-18/>. 
"Incidence of Circumcision in Canada." . N.p., Sept. 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/>. 
"The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors." Medical Ethics Commitee, British Medical Association (2006). Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/bma2003/>. 
"United Kingdom: Circumcision Incidence." . N.p., Aug. 2006. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/UK/>. 
"Incidence of Male Neonatal Circumcision New Zealand." . N.p., Apr. 2006. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/NZ/>. 
"Circumcision and non-circumcision in Australia." . N.p., Jan. 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/CandNon-C/>. 
"Circumcision study halted due to trauma." Writ. Steve Salvatore. Cable News Network. CNN, 23 Dec. 1997. Web. 
"Babies' foreskins used to make cosmetics. Is this ethical?." Crunchy Domestic Goddess. Ed. Heather Farley. N.p., 28 May 2009. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://crunchydomesticgoddess.com/2009/05/28/babies-foreskins-used-to-make-cosmetics-is-this-ethical/>. 
"Human Foreskins are Big Business for Cosmetics." Associated Content. Ed. Summer Minor. N.p., 16 Feb. 2007. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/146761/human_foreskins_are_big_business_for.html?cat=69>.
"Human Foreskins in Cosmetics." Suite101. Ed. Lisa Russell. N.p., 7 Feb. 2010. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://medicalethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/human-baby-foreskins-in-cosmetics>.  
"American Academy of Pediatrics: Former Circumcision Policy Statements." Circumcision Reference Library. N.p., Mar. 2008. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/>.
"Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice." Academy of American Pediatrics 95.2 (1995): 314-17. Web. 1 May 2010. <http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/AAP/>.
Council on Scientific Affairs. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.
AAFP Commission on Science. Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. Leawood, Kansas: American Academy of Family Physicians, 2002.[/sp]




> WOW.
> 
> I can't believe you HONESTLY believe running water over foreskin is enough to "remove" any type of diseases that can affect the dick.


Yeah, believe it or not, terrestrial mammals evolved ways to not have to swim around in ponds full of alligators and in oceans filled with rip-tides to protect themselves against infection. One of those ways was the foreskin, because it's somewhat more difficult for infected water to get into the urethra if there's a protective barrier over it.



> But then again, what do I care?


You obviously care enough to come in here and bullshit.


> It's not like you're me,


Thank fucking god.


> or that you would be the father of my child.
> I'll be SURE to teach my children proper hygiene, and could care LESS if they had their foreskins removed or not.


Happy to hear about the hygeine, and I do hope that you could care to keep your children healthy by taking the American Academy of Pediatrics advise on the issue by not circumcising your children, and know that you don't have to worry about the "horrors" within because it'll take care of itself, just like it's done for every other mammalian species. And if a problem does arise with their penis, I hope you bring them to a pediatric urologist. Not some fucking asshole who wants to snip off your kid's organs to pay for a new car.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

> I wouldn't treat them like mutated freaks like you and some of the other posters have been doing here.


I don't vouch for other posters, but I don't treat people like mutated freaks. They were wronged at newborns and the functionality of their penis has been determented. But at the same time, I owe it to myself as a human to make them and others aware of that problem not so that they can get pissed or hurt, but so that it doesn't happen to someone else.

I post again, in the words of the pediatricians in my family:


> "We never recommend circumcision and always inform patients of the risks and consequences whilst dismantling the lies and rumors as fulfilling our role in ensuring that our patients are as healthy and happy as they can be with the skills we possess. We also recognize that promoting anger, regret, and even vengeance on the issue does not improve one's health or self-image."
> -A family pediatric group in the northeast region of the US





> I just enjoy debunking people on a high horse.


You'd do a much better job if you researched the topic you debate in.



> Uh, ya don't say.


Uh, I do say. As I said here:
[sp]





			
				Toroxus said:
			
		

> Hearing people defend circumcision when every medical association is against it sickens me. Let's me just take 1 second to obliterate this list:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/sp]



> If not done properly, and not cleansed. I'm sure it's not as easy to get a disease with a circumcised dick which is easy to clean with one that is not cut.


Read the above novel. And what part of, "doctors say not to worry about 'cleaning'" don't you understand? Flow, you don't have a normal penis, and I feel pretty confident that you've never cleaned someone's elses. As such, I suggest you stop listening to what other people who are circumcised say about cleaning normal penises and start listening to what doctors say about it. It'll you out a lot.




> So do I, but I don't act like I need a medal for it. Thanks for letting me know though.


Bullshit, Flow. You've never said a single thing in either the Homothreads of this thread that made anyone think you've done any research. If you went on the American Academy of Pediatrics website and took 5 minutes to read their statements on it, you wouldn't be saying such stupid shit like, "uncuts get diseases, especially when they don't wash. Washing can be tiredsome for them."


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ Glad some people are starting to see how silly it is to research and debate over something most people could care less about.



Yeah, stupid silly shit that people research, like fucking science and medicine. Stuff like how organs and diseases work and how we can improve the health of people through better understand of the body, how to treat ailments, and human rights. What a fucking waste of time.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> I don't vouch for other posters, but I don't treat people like mutated freaks. They were wronged at newborns and the functionality of their penis has been determented. But at the same time, I owe it to myself as a human to make them and others aware of that problem not so that they can get pissed or hurt, but so that it doesn't happen to someone else.
> 
> I post again, in the words of the pediatricians in my family:





You childishly said "WELL AT LEAST MY DICK DOESNT HAVE SCARS LIKE YOURS"





> You'd do a much better job if you researched the topic you debate in.



You would do a better job if you didn't jump to conclusions. 


> Uh, I do say. As I said here:
> [sp][/sp]



.



> Read the above novel.



wtf haha

I'm not going to read some novel about foreskin when I could care less about if they are removed or not.

For your fellow "humans", perhaps you should go on a quest towards stopping genocides, ending poverty, etc. Not interviewing fictional people about their dicks. 




> And what part of, "doctors say not to worry about 'cleaning'" don't you understand? Flow, you don't have a normal penis, and I feel pretty confident that you've never cleaned someone's elses. As such, I suggest you stop listening to what other people who are circumcised say about cleaning normal penises and start listening to what doctors say about it. It'll you out a lot.



"YOU DONT HAVE A NORMAL PENIS"

I could care less how it looks. As long as it can smang me some pretty women who could care less if it has skin or not.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> You childishly said "WELL AT LEAST MY DICK DOESNT HAVE SCARS LIKE YOURS"



Did you not read what I was quoting? 



> You would do a better job if you didn't jump to conclusions.


My conclusion was at the end of a 67 page booklet.  I saved it for last. 



> wtf haha
> 
> I'm not going to read some novel about foreskin when I could care less about if they are removed or not.



You if you're not going to read your criticisms, which I know you don't, why are you here?
And if you don't care about the health and well-being of other people, including yourself and your possible-children, how could you call yourself a human?

And like so many people have pointed out, "I could care less" means that you have to care somewhat to be able to care less than you already do. You mean to say, "I couldn't care less."



> For your fellow "humans", perhaps you should go on a quest towards stopping genocides, ending poverty, etc. Not interviewing fictional people about their dicks.


Oh, a glass ceiling argument.  I think improving the health and well-being of others is a perfect quest to undertake. Obviously you, "could care less." [sic]



> "YOU DONT HAVE A NORMAL PENIS"


Pretending the truth isn't true doesn't make it so. A person who was born blind by no means has "normal eyes." Sorry mate, the truth it the truth, pretending it's not just makes the problem worse. This isn't a fairytale, just wishing it away or calling it nice names doesn't make it so.

I don't call people pretend who are paralyzed from car accidents to be "normal" people. It would be an insult to not work to find ways to improve their living conditions, and if you pretend there isn't a problem to begin with, why would you ever look for a solution?



> I could care less how it looks. As long as it can smang me some pretty women who could care less if it has skin or not.


Whatever floats your boat. In America, namely Eastern USA, about half of all males are circumcised, so women don't have a problem with it. Go anywhere else, and women will be looking for other things. 

And this isn't an aesthetic argument and neither was my thesis. I nailed home the medical aspects of it, and once it's proven that it's detrimental to your health, the question comes to be, "Why do we force it upon newborns so that they can't choose?"
That's the purpose of this topic, the Germans said, "Fuck that, you can't force that on someone who can't consent."


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus really did some research on this



> Circumcision is...	07-04-2012 07:33 PM	Toroxus	Have fun having your dicks look like burn scars instead of dicks.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Did you not read what I was quoting?



Yeah, hence why I said you childishly responded. 




> You if you're not going to read your criticisms, which I know you don't, why are you here?
> And if you don't care about the health and well-being of other people, including yourself and your possible-children, how could you call yourself a human?




Right, the health and well beings of humans.

Hey everyone, I'm not human because I don't care if foreskin is removed or not.

I'm sure you all read my post like this "FUCK FORESKIN! ALL HEIL THE DICK SLICER DOCTORS! ALL HEIL! "


> And like so many people have pointed out, "I could care less" means that you have to care somewhat to be able to care less than you already do. You mean to say, "I couldn't care less."



I could care less. In fact, I'm caring less now. 

/sarcasm

Thank you for pointing that out. 



> Oh, a glass ceiling argument.  I think improving the health and well-being of others is a perfect quest to undertake. Obviously you, "could care less." [sic]



No, I'm actually looking into programs that send care packages to other undeveloped countries and want to see what I can do to help out humanity when it comes to the unfortunate who are unable to provide food/shelter for themselves.



> Whatever floats your boat. In America, namely Eastern USA, about half of all males are circumcised, so women don't have a problem with it. Go anywhere else, and women will be looking for other things.



I'm in the military, and know plenty of guys who have had intercourse with foreign women/brought them back with them to the states, etc

I like how you say "Women will be looking for other things" as if you know them.

Pull all of your "statistics" aside, all of your "thesis", all of your make believe interviews, and you have someone who doesn't want to accept the fact most people could care less about this issue.


----------



## Black Wraith (Jul 5, 2012)

Any cut guys here complaining about being cut?


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

^ No, there aren't.


----------



## Spock (Jul 5, 2012)

I would not get together with uncut guys.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Toroxus really did some research on this



 Yeah, I just replaced the word "anteater" in your statement. 



Flow said:


> Yeah, hence why I said you childishly responded.


Nah, more like counter-trolling 




> Right, the health and well beings of humans.
> 
> Hey everyone, I'm not human because I don't care if foreskin is removed or not.


Nah, strawman all you like, Flow. No one falls for it. I said you're not a human because you don't care for the health of your children.



> I'm sure you all read my post like this "FUCK FORESKIN! ALL HEIL THE DICK SLICER DOCTORS! ALL HEIL! "


See above.



> No, I'm actually looking into programs that send care packages to other undeveloped countries and want to see what I can do to help out humanity when it comes to the unfortunate who are unable to provide food/shelter for themselves.


Well, then I hope you send goods and not money. Because those people aren't poor in those countries because they don't have resources, they're poor because their government steals everything from them.



> I'm in the military, and know plenty of guys who have had intercourse with foreign women/brought them back with them to the states, etc
> 
> I like how you say "Women will be looking for other things" as if you know them.


Yeah, well, believe it or not, some people don't live in the USA.



> Pull all of your "statistics" aside, all of your "thesis", all of your make believe interviews, and you have someone who doesn't want to accept the fact most people could care less about this issue.


Yeah, all of the make believe sources which you probably didn't even read a word of. I bullshitted all the links, they just direct to pictures of penises of course. Catboy penises, yeah, it's part of my plot to take over. 

I don't know that most people I've met in person would care about their children's health. As such, they look for knowledge from people who've made it their life's work to provide and research the most accurate information. Hence my family being almost nothing but pediatricians. I know you don't want to do such things, but I'd hope you'd at least care enough about your children to talk to one.



Eli said:


> I would not get together with uncut guys.


Yeah, terrible uncut people. Like everyone in the world except the 1/3rd of the USA, and everyone before 1930. Terrible people, like Norman Borlaug or Tesla. 



Black Wraith said:


> Any cut guys here complaining about being cut?


Yep.
But mostly people are complaining about how other's don't have the right to permanently modify your body in a cosmetic procedure with medical consequences without your consent.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Yeah, I just replaced the word "anteater" in your statement.



Uncircumsized penis looks like an anteater. Cut dicks don't look like burn scars.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Nah, strawman all you like, Flow. No one falls for it. I said you're not a human because you don't care for the health of your children.
> 
> 
> See above.



Hey everyone,

I'm not human because I could care less if my child has foreskin or not. 

"ALL HEIL THE DICK SLICER! ALL HEIL !"


> Well, then I hope you send goods and not money. Because those people aren't poor in those countries because they don't have resources, they're poor because their government steals everything from them.



Apparently, you don't understand what I was saying. I would contribute goods to them and not interview make believe people and research foreskin. 


> Yeah, well, believe it or not, some people don't live in the USA.



Yeah, well. Believe it or not, foreign women aren't going to "look somewhere else". I like how you generalized all of them. 


> Yeah, all of the make believe sources which you probably didn't even read a word of. I bullshitted all the links, they just direct to pictures of penises of course. Catboy penises, yeah, it's part of my plot to take over.



I'm not going to waste my time reading a novel about foreskin.


----------



## Black Wraith (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Yep.
> But mostly people are complaining about how other's don't have the right to permanently modify your body in a cosmetic procedure with medical consequences without your consent.



Who?

10char


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 5, 2012)

Man, Toroxus knows less about dicks than people who watch porn


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

I have not seen one user in here who has complained about having their foreskin removed.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Uncircumsized penis looks like an anteater. Cut dicks don't look like burn scars.



Of course penises look like woodland creatures
[sp][/sp]
Yeah, I'd see a doctor if my penis looked like that.

And of course cut dicks don't look like burn scars, which are usually the only scars big enough to get all sorts of fun characteristics like stitch tunnels and other great stuff. 

Oh wait, here's some male who is so thankful that his penis was circumcised without his consent. I'm sure these graphic pictures of his exposed pnis are all the rave amongst women today. Don't want to see a picture of a penis? Don't click the link.
Not at all like


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 5, 2012)

So, one doctor fucks up . It happens


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

yet again, has any cut man complained about the way their dicks looked?

Has anyone?


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> I'm not going to waste my time reading a novel about foreskin.


By all means, quit wasting time here.



Black Wraith said:


> Who?


If they want to name themselves, they can go right ahead and post. I'll take their private messages on my rep page as a hint that they don't want to be named.



Elim Rawne said:


> Man, Toroxus knows less about dicks than people who watch porn


Of course. I'm actually a female in an all female colony.



Flow said:


> I have not seen one user in here who has complained about having their foreskin removed.


Yeah, I won't either with people like you still around.



Elim Rawne said:


> So, one doctor fucks up . It happens


Why'd it happen?


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Lol, no one is insecure about their dicks. You're the only person here making people out to be some mutated freaks because they don't have skin on their foreskin Toroxus.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> Lol, no one is insecure about their dicks.


Really? In the age of the internet, this has to be the stupidest thing I've heard.



> You're the only person here making people out to be some mutated freaks because they don't have skin on their foreskin Toroxus.


Yep, even though I've never actually called anyone a "mutated freak" and only advocate that people shouldn't have the right to their own bodies, whilst dealing with fantastic doctorate debates like "lolz anteater dicks" I'm clearly out of line for joining all the medical organizations in the world by saying that circumcision is bad for your health, and it's not a decision for others to impose on you.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Really? In the age of the internet, this has to be the stupidest thing I've heard.



No, you know what I meant, but decide to generalize (as usual).

No one cares if their skin was cut off or not, you're the only one directing people to read novels about foreskin and have devoted part of your life towards interviewing make believe people over this. 



> Yep, even though I've never actually called anyone a "mutated freak"



"You don't have a normal dick" despite the fact that many people have cut dicks. And it's only a growing trend due to the porn industry.

"Your dick looks like a burn victim"


----------



## Spock (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Yeah, terrible uncut people. Like everyone in the world except the 1/3rd of the USA, and everyone before 1930. Terrible people, like Norman Borlaug or Tesla.



Yes, I find it disgusting. 

Bringing up famous people as a reference is really cheap, I could do the same and bring up Einstein who was Jewish and definitely circumcised.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus fighting for babies' rights.

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> No one cares if their skin was cut off or not, you're the only one directing people to read novels about foreskin and have devoted part of your life towards interviewing make believe people over this.


Just like that guy above who I linked to. He totally doesn't care either way.  



> "You don't have a normal dick" despite the fact that many people have cut dicks. And it's only a growing trend due to the porn industry.
> 
> "Your dick looks like a burn victim"


A blind person doesn't have normal eyes.  And by "growing trend" you mean "falling off the face of the earth fast." In 1970, USA, Canada, Aus, and UK were circumcising about 90%. Today, only the USA still does that, and last year, only ~30% of newborn males were circumcised in the US. Those kids will not have their children circumcised, thus, 1 generation or 2 at the most, it'll be gone from the last first-world nation it exists in.



Eli said:


> Yes, I find it disgusting.


Good for you



> Bringing up famous people as a reference is really cheap, I could do the same and bring up Einstein who was Jewish and definitely circumcised.



Someone said something about "I don't hang out with guys with uncut dicks." And that's a shame, because that's almost everyone in the world. Most people realize that it's not their place to chop off organs of someone else who doesn't consent. Those people are good people. Good people usually raise good children. Good children usually grow up to do good things. 

Of course, people in the USA who circumcise their kids aren't "bad people" they are just being fooled by some asshole who wants to buy a new car and those lies are kept up by people like you.



Mider T said:


> Toroxus fighting for babies' rights.
> 
> Why am I not surprised?



I'm not surprised. In a blink of an eye, they won't be babies. And they'll wonder why.


----------



## Spock (Jul 5, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Good for you
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I said I wouldn't get together which normally should translate to relationship that of course leads to sex. I said I wouldn't fuck uncircumcised guys, either there was a serious misunderstanding, a comprehension error or you just like targeting and misinterpreting things. 

After all, who goes around to check his friends dicks to make sure that the friendship is a-ok and hanging with them shouldn't be a problem ?


----------



## Ari (Jul 5, 2012)

men are their dicks and personally i'd never touch a circumcised dick



Flow said:


> because they don't have skin on their foreskin



hahah oh my god

you're only funny when you don't mean to be


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 5, 2012)

Eli said:


> I said I wouldn't get together which normally should translate to relationship that of course leads to sex. I said I wouldn't fuck uncircumcised guys, either there was a serious misunderstanding, a comprehension error or you just like targeting and misinterpreting things.


No, their point still sticks while you misunderstand. You're still suggesting that you would limit yourself to guys who are cut. It's statistically worse than saying you would only date, let's say, gingers. Nothing particularly bad or good about it, it's just that it can seem weird to others when that shouldn't really be all that important if you care more about who someone is rather than a "what" that's globally dwindling.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

@ Toroxus

actually, it's ranging.

Not a majority, but a very high number. 



> Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one-sixth[2] to a third,[3] and it is commonly practiced between infancy and the early twenties.[88] The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[88] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, parts of Southeast Asia, Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. It is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa, and most of Asia and Oceania. Prevalence is near-universal in the Middle East and Central Asia.[88] The WHO states that "there is generally little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines".[88] The WHO presents a map of estimated prevalence in which the level is generally low (< 20%) across Europe,[88] and Klavs et al. report findings that "support the notion that the prevalence is low in Europe".[125] In Latin America, prevalence is universally low.[126] Estimates for individual countries include Spain,[127] Colombia[127] and Denmark[128] less than 2%, Finland 0.006%[129] and 7%,[130] Brazil[127] 7%, Taiwan[131] 9%, Thailand[127] 13% and Australia[132] 58.7%.
> The WHO estimates prevalence in the United States and Canada at 75% and 30%, respectively.[88] Prevalence in Africa varies from less than 20% in some southern African countries to near universal in North and West Africa.[126]





Eli said:


> After all, who goes around to check his friends dicks to make sure that the friendship is a-ok and hanging with them shouldn't be a problem ?



Someone who is concerned about foreskin. *cough Toroxus *cough*


----------



## Spock (Jul 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, their point still sticks while you misunderstand. You're still suggesting that you would limit yourself to guys who are cut. It's statistically worse than saying you would only date, let's say, gingers. Nothing particularly bad or good about it, it's just that it can seem weird to others when that shouldn't really be all that important if you care more about who someone is rather than a "what" that's globally dwindling.



It shouldn't seem weird, it's called preference and some people do have standards .


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 5, 2012)

Eli said:


> It shouldn't seem weird, it's called preference and some people do have standards .



There's preference, and there's going out of your way to suggest you'll pass someone up because of what they are. As likelihood in thinking goes, you're still operating on a viewpoint that's a minority on a global scale. So, yes, that particular "preference" is quite odd for a significant amount of people. A dying "traditional" viewpoint isn't synonymous with the generality that people have preferences and standards.

Especially when whether or not someone is cut is likely to not be nor should be the first thing someone be concerned about when for looking for a relationship. It's just making options unreasonably smaller, no pun intended, by making what's pretty common a stigma.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

I wouldn't date a woman with one breast insanely bigger than the other.

I should be more open, and ignore my preference


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> I wouldn't date a woman with one breast insanely bigger than the other.
> 
> I should be more open, and ignore my preference



Because all women are naturally born as babies with one breast insanely bigger than the other to the point this is the majority case for women by an incredibly high majority. Do you understand the difference here?


----------



## Spock (Jul 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> There's preference, and there's going out of your way to suggest you'll pass someone up because of what they are. As likelihood in thinking goes, you're still operating on a viewpoint that's a minority on a global scale. So, yes, that particular "preference" is quite odd for a significant amount of people. A dying "traditional" viewpoint isn't synonymous with the generality that people have preferences and standards.



Yeah ? Well tough luck then, these are my standards and anyone who feels like getting into a relationship with me would have to comply. 



> Especially when whether or not someone is cut is likely to not be nor should be the first thing someone be concerned about when for looking for a relationship. It's just making options unreasonably smaller, no pun intended, by making what's pretty common a stigma.


Matter of opinion, and to an extent, location.


----------



## Ichi Sagato (Jul 5, 2012)

After a lot of research I am withdrawing and reversing my original argument. Male circumcision, like female circumcision is wrong and is done on a purely aesthetic, traditional, or religious motivation. Good for Germany for taking a step forward and away from harmful bronze age primitive practices. Good points also Toroxus.


----------



## Doge (Jul 5, 2012)

It's a grievous injury?


Well I guess that means I haven't a nasty battle scar now.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 5, 2012)

Eli said:


> Yeah ? Well tough luck then, these are my standards and anyone who feels like getting into a relationship with me would have to comply.


Most of mankind is quite happy with that then.


> Matter of opinion, and to an extent, location.



No, a matter of given statistics and social behavior. There's too many other things to worry about beyond whether or not someone is cut or not. It's really obvious when even you have to admit that it's not the worst issue you could have with a guy in terms of whether or not you bother to have a relationship with them. If it's truly your number 1 above all, good luck.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Because all women are naturally born as babies with one breast insanely bigger than the other to the point this is the majority case for women by an incredibly high majority. Do you understand the difference here?



No, but I know someone prefers a body part certain ways. It's not your call to judge them, or to tell them they need to be more open.


----------



## Redshadow49 (Jul 5, 2012)

This thread got a little too long.  It went from what would be best for the infants to defending your penis and I know for a fact mine is the best.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 5, 2012)

Flow said:


> No, but I know someone prefers a body part certain ways. It's not your call to judge them, or to tell them they need to be more open.



It's actually your right to have a preference with it also protected that I have the right to make an opinion about that preference and explain how odd it is as far as statistics and hierarchy of likely concerns in social thinking go. That preference is still statistically uncommon and thus easy to be considered odd. An uncut penis doesn't equate to a woman having one breast that's ridiculously oversize in comparison to the other. Whether or not Eli is more open was never the point whatsoever when I even reiterated the fact that said viewpoint is dwindling into non-existence as things progress anyway.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> I said I wouldn't get together which normally should translate to relationship that of course leads to sex. I said I wouldn't fuck uncircumcised guys, either there was a serious misunderstanding, a comprehension error or you just like targeting and misinterpreting things.



Why not? It doesn't feel any different when doing the deed as far as I know. It's like me saying I wouldn't date a girl who doesn't shave her pubes. To me, at least, such matters are rather trivial because there are hundreds of other things that can influence a relationship. Not wanting to be with someone purely because they're a certain way seems judgmental, in all honesty.

It's one thing to have standards, but it's another to have bias. Keeping a standard for yourself is when you try to maintain your dignity according to a set of guidelines. When people base their entire line of thought on those guidelines is when standards turn to something else. I'm not saying that's what you do, I'm merely pointing out many people do that. I don't know what's so undignified about a guy who's uncut or for a girl to be dating a guy who's uncut.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> Any cut guys here complaining about being cut?





Black Wraith said:


> Who?
> 
> 10char





Flow said:


> I have not seen one user in here who has complained about having their foreskin removed.



In that case you must have missed my posts. I'm circumcised and I oppose unwarranted infant circumcision.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 6, 2012)

I find Eli's comments rather repulsive personally. Of course she has the right to decide such things for herself, but her comments are equivalent to guys who only dates thin women with huge silicon breasts (meaning women require surgery to date these guys). It's shallow and limited.

Btw, this is what Wikipedia's page on  has to say on how women respond to sex with circumcised/un-circumcised dicks:

"O'Hara and O'Hara found that women with intact partners reported  higher likeliness of orgasms and a reduction in vaginal dryness. They  conclude "women preferred vaginal intercourse with an anatomically  complete penis over that with a circumcised penis" and argue that  foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during  intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and  helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often.  A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that  vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised. Cort?s-Gonz?lez _et al._  studied 19 female partners of men scheduled for circumcision. They  reported a significant reduction in vaginal lubrication following  circumcision, from 78% to 63%, but found no statistically significant  differences in "general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal  penetration, desire, [or] vaginal orgasm"."


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 6, 2012)

Side A "Circumcision is grievous body harm with little to no real medical benefits and x medical drawbacks, that is made on a helpless newborn by strapping him to a table, getting a knife to his dick and slice the tip off with no anesthetic, until the baby passes out in shock. Not that anesthetic would have made it better since it carries a severe risk.
It is in sum a sex crime perpetrated by an enthusiastic society who should know better"

Side B: "But you don't get it, bitches like my stumpy dick, and the only reason why you find it appalling is because you actually really want to have a circumcision too, or else you wouldn't care. "


Fucking logic man


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Most of mankind is quite happy with that then.


Guess what? I'm not gonna date most of mankind. 



> No, a matter of given statistics and social behavior. There's too many other things to worry about beyond whether or not someone is cut or not. It's really obvious when even you have to admit that it's not the worst issue you could have with a guy in terms of whether or not you bother to have a relationship with them. If it's truly your number 1 above all, good luck.



I come from a place where more than 80% of the men population are circumcised, on the contrary to what you mentioned, I wouldn't have to bother worrying if he was uncircumcised or not. 



Freedan said:


> Why not? It doesn't feel any different when doing the deed as far as I know. It's like me saying I wouldn't date a girl who doesn't shave her pubes. To me, at least, such matters are rather trivial because there are hundreds of other things that can influence a relationship. Not wanting to be with someone purely because they're a certain way seems judgmental, in all honesty.
> 
> It's one thing to have standards, but it's another to have bias. Keeping a standard for yourself is when you try to maintain your dignity according to a set of guidelines. When people base their entire line of thought on those guidelines is when standards turn to something else. I'm not saying that's what you do, I'm merely pointing out many people do that. I don't know what's so undignified about a guy who's uncut or for a girl to be dating a guy who's uncut.



Tough luck. Uncircumcised men are a major turnoff imo, there's nothing "undignified" about uncut men your friend over there mentioned Tesla, however these are my personal standards or bias if you will and I'm quite happy with them. 



perman07 said:


> I find Eli's comments rather repulsive personally. Of course she has the right to decide such things for herself, but her comments are equivalent to guys who only dates thin women with huge silicon breasts (meaning women require surgery to date these guys). It's shallow and limited.


Boho Hoo.

What's wrong with guys who are attracted only to thin women with silicon breasts? You could be an amazing person, smart and intelligent but you just happen to like thin women with silicon breasts. Nobody forces you to aquire silicon breasts but women do it willingly. Life is not a teen movie about the dumb jock.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> Tough luck. Uncircumcised men are a major turnoff imo, there's nothing "undignified" about uncut men your friend over there mentioned Tesla, however these are my personal standards or bias if you will and I'm quite happy with them.



Scenario: You meet a guy and you frequent him for some time. You decide to date him because you're attracted to him and the more you know him, the closer you two become and the stronger your feelings are for him. He's everything you ever want in a man: kind, reliable, cheerful, whatever your preferences. At some point, you two decide you want to get intimate, and that's when you discover he's uncut. Would you dump him despite the great time you've had and your strong feelings for him?

And before you say it, the answer "I would've asked him before we did it" doesn't count. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you didn't know until you two were that close to doing it.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

^ What if the person was a transsexual?  

You spend a lot of good time with that person, then find out they are later not what they said they were.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ What if the person was a transsexual?
> 
> You spend a lot of good time with that person, then find out they are later not what they said they were.



Same difference, I don't think that changes anything in the situation I present. The point of your scenario and mine are the same: the person she's dating isn't who she was expecting to be and that thing she discovers contradicts with her standards, which he fails to satisfy.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> Guess what? I'm not gonna date most of mankind.



Really? I would of never guessed that. I'm completely blown away.


> I come from a place where more than 80% of the men population are circumcised, on the contrary to what you mentioned, I wouldn't have to bother worrying if he was uncircumcised or not.


Except for the existence of the 20%. Which state or region are you referring to that has that statistic? You obviously would worry when you have it as a concern in the first place at all. You're gonna have a hard time convincing me that you would pick a cruddy guy who is cut over a uncut guy who isn't. Where you come from is meaningless overall and you're free to continue a preference that will just die out anyway.



Flow said:


> ^ What if the person was a transsexual?
> 
> You spend a lot of good time with that person, then find out they are later not what they said they were.



Because people are forced to be transsexual at birth with it a natural original state for all men. Seriously, false equivalence isn't enough..


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Scenario: You meet a guy and you frequent him for some time. You decide to date him because you're attracted to him and the more you know him, the closer you two become and the stronger your feelings are for him. He's everything you ever want in a man: kind, reliable, cheerful, whatever your preferences. At some point, you two decide you want to get intimate, and that's when you discover he's uncut. Would you dump him despite the great time you've had and your strong feelings for him?
> 
> And before you say it, the answer "I would've asked him before we did it" doesn't count. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you didn't know until you two were that close to doing it.



This will make me sound horrible but yes I will, I'm not gonna stay with someone that turns me off it is not fair to either of us. 

Concerning the transsexual scenario, it is very different, if you didnt know that this part of history wouldnt bother your potential partner until you get too deep into the relationship you wouldn't have kept it a secret. That is irrelevant to my situation anyway just wanted to add an input.


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Really? I would of never guessed that. I'm completely blown away.
> 
> Except for the existence of the 20%. Which state or region are you referring to that has that statistic? You obviously would worry when you have it as a concern in the first place at all. You're gonna have a hard time convincing me that you would pick a cruddy guy who is cut over a uncut guy who isn't. Where you come from is meaningless overall and you're free to continue a preference that will just die out anyway.


The Middle East

Too much presupposition, who said I'm gonna date a cruddy person or that I prefer them ? 80% is a huge percentage and this huge number is not going die out during my lifetime budd.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Same difference, I don't think that changes anything in the situation I present. The point of your scenario and mine are the same: the person she's dating isn't who she was expecting to be and that thing she discovers contradicts with her standards, which he fails to satisfy.



Yeah, that's where me and you differ. 

I should not tell you, that you shouldn't continue seeing that person. You shouldn't tell me that I should continue seeing that person.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> The Middle East
> 
> Too much presupposition, who said I'm gonna date a cruddy person or that I prefer them ?


I didn't say you did. I actually suggested the opposite. Way to go in missing the mark entirely.


> 80% is a huge percentage and this huge number is not going die out during my lifetime budd.



That's the thing, I don't care about your lifetime. That should of been obvious as I talked about given worldwide progress as the statistics show.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> This will make me sound horrible but yes I will, I'm not gonna stay with someone that turns me off it is not fair to either of us.



Well, I hate to be so brutally honest with you, but that uncompromising attitude of yours isn't going to do you any favors with anyone you'll get the fortune of meeting. Compromise is just as much a part of a relationship as everything else if not more so. Giving up on the perfect man, someone who's unique and who you will never find anywhere else in the world, over a piece of skin without even batting an eye is extremely short-sighted and shallow, as perman07 said.



Flow said:


> Yeah, that's where me and you differ.
> 
> I should not tell you, that you shouldn't continue seeing that person. You shouldn't tell me that I should continue seeing that person.



Of course not. It's a matter of personal preference and I'm not going to tell someone what to do and what not to. I'm merely commenting that I find it wrongful from the perspective of someone who would be uncut, falls for the girl of his dreams only to get dumped because she doesn't like the fact he has a piece of skin she's not comfortable with.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

^ I agree. We should compromise, and throw our sexual preferences/culture out the window.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ I agree. We should compromise, and throw our sexual preferences/culture out the window.



Sexuality and not liking a piece of skin aren't the same thing by a long-shot. Anyone can get circumcised if they wish to. It's not that difficult if done properly and by a professional. It's just a piece of skin, which is why I'm dumbfounded that anyone would be so disgusted by it. Sexuality is preference between genders altogether. You can't just change your gender because the one you like is straight while you're not, nor is it an easy thing to throw away your own morals to be with someone you want to be with. In the scenario I shows to Eli, compromise would've been suggesting to her lover to get circumcised.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 6, 2012)

Flow said:


> ^ I agree. We should compromise, and throw our sexual preferences/culture out the window.



And marriage is between a man and woman.

That's about how intelligent your responses have been. Lay off the red herring.


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> I didn't say you did. I actually suggested the opposite.
> 
> 
> I don't care about your lifetime. That should of been obvious as I talked about given worldwide progress as the statistics show.



You presented an unrealistic proposal since 80% is a huge percentage but you limited the offer to a cruddy guy from the 80% and a a good one from the 20%. 

I did not asked you to care, it should have been obvious as I was talking about my region most of the time and it should have been obvious that I talked about it not dying out in my region and not worldwide.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> You presented an unrealistic proposal since 80% is a huge percentage but you limited the offer to a cruddy guy from the 80% and a a good one from the 20%.



No, simply suggested that you would have a hard time telling me you would pick a cruddy guy who is uncut over a uncut guy who isn't. It's still a possible scenario comparison to be dealt with. The percentage is meaningless to the given hypothetical where the main point is that cut or uncut isn't the number concern for someone to start dating when it can't really come up front and center.


> I did not asked you to care, it should have been obvious as I was talking about my region most of the time and it should have been obvious that I talked about it not dying out in my region and not worldwide.



Actually, you're somewhat asking by bothering with the "where I come from." It should of been obvious in the first place when worldwide standards were being discussed rather than caring about minority standards of heavily traditional regions. I've been pretty consistent on that matter till you brought up where you're from. Where you're from didn't really matter to me in the first place as should of been obvious. It's obvious you're asking me to care when you happen to mention it. Having to talk about it at all as we are now means I had to care enough to talk about it at all right now.


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Well, I hate to be so brutally honest with you, but that uncompromising attitude of yours isn't going to do you any favors with anyone you'll get the fortune of meeting. Compromise is just as much a part of a relationship as everything else if not more so. Giving up on the perfect man, someone who's unique and who you will never find anywhere else in the world, over a piece of skin without even batting an eye is extremely short-sighted and shallow, as perman07 said.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. It's a matter of personal preference and I'm not going to tell someone what to do and what not to. I'm merely commenting that I find it wrongful from the perspective of someone who would be uncut, falls for the girl of his dreams only to get dumped because she doesn't like the fact he has a piece of skin she's not comfortable with.


As I said before, tough luck. There is no such thing as the perfect man, everyone is as unique as snowflakes. I'm not gonna be dishonest and lie to the person I love, that is wrongful.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

Why do you guys even care if she doesn't like a guy with foreskin.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> As I said before, tough luck. There is no such thing as the perfect man, everyone is as unique as snowflakes. I'm not gonna be dishonest and lie to the person I love, that is wrongful.



You're just avoiding the argument here. Of course no one will be perfect, and you have every right to your preferences. I'm only commenting on how hurtful that may or may not be to the one you'd cast aside over a piece of skin.

Let me ask you something else then. If he got circumcised, would you get back into a relationship with him?


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, simply suggested that you would have a hard time telling me you would pick a cruddy guy who is uncut over a uncut guy who isn't. It's still a possible scenario comparison to be dealt with. The percentage is meaningless to the given hypothetical where the main point is that cut or uncut isn't the number concern for someone to start dating when it can't really come up front and center.



Alright, you want to disregard the percentages ? I'm faced with an unfair ultimatum who do I pick ? The cut asshole or the uncut gentleman ? Neither. Both of them fail to meet my standards.    




> Actually, you're somewhat asking by bothering with the "where I come from." It should of been obvious in the first place when worldwide standards were being discussed rather than caring about minority standards of heavily traditional regions. I've been pretty consistent on that matter till you brought up where you're from. Where you're from didn't really matter to me in the first place as should of been obvious. It's obvious you're asking me to care when you happen to mention it. Having to talk about it at all as we are now means I had to care enough to talk about it at all right now.


I've been discussing my preferences and how it was influenced while replying to multiple users, I've never cared about circumcisions worldwide statues and if I remember correctly I did not engage in any discussion where the worldwide view was con concerned.  I'm not asking you to care, you care enough to give and take which I welcome.


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

Freedan said:


> You're just avoiding the argument here. Of course no one will be perfect, and you have every right to your preferences. I'm only commenting on how hurtful that may or may not be to the one you'd cast aside over a piece of skin.



I'm not really, my answer was straightforward, a no. 



> Let me ask you something else then. If he got circumcised, would you get back into a relationship with him?



Of course.


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

Eli said:


> I'm not really, my answer was straightforward, a no.
> 
> Of course.



....I don't really know what to say


----------



## Ari (Jul 6, 2012)

man = dick

told y'all


----------



## perman07 (Jul 6, 2012)

Well, Eli has presented her side pretty thoroughly, though I'm still dumbfounded by it all.

We all have preferences, me mentioning women with huge silicon tits is not accidental, since I like big tits and have frequented big tit porn-forums and read the off-topic sections on them. My point being that it is my impression that even men with that particular fetish (if liking big tits can be considered one) don't categorically reject every woman who don't fit their criteria.

It just seems weird to care that much about some skin on the penis...


----------



## Roman (Jul 6, 2012)

perman07 said:


> Well, Eli has presented her side pretty thoroughly, though I'm still dumbfounded by it all.
> 
> We all have preferences, me mentioning women with huge silicon tits is not accidental, since I like big tits and have frequented big tit porn-forums and read the off-topic sections on them. My point being that it is my impression that even men with that particular fetish (if liking big tits can be considered one) don't categorically reject every woman who don't fit their criteria.
> 
> It just seems weird to care that much about some skin on the penis...



Hence my absolute loss of words.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

You both are being dramatic

*gasp* I'm at a loss of words. Someone who DOESN'T like foreskin?


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

Oh and Saufsoldat, if I remember correctly, you are that same user who told me some time ago that we should kill off babies who possess dangerous "diseases" (the child who could only consume water). 

So don't tell me about "how it's so much of an injustice towards children"


----------



## Spock (Jul 6, 2012)

I know right?  Disregard my standards and preferences for love, rainbows, unicorns, flowers and fairy dust ? Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Flow said:


> Oh and Saufsoldat, if I remember correctly, you are that same user who told me some time ago that we should kill off babies who possess dangerous "diseases" (the child who could only consume water).
> 
> So don't tell me about "how it's so much of an injustice towards children"



You don't remember correctly.

But even if I did, what the fuck does that change? We're talking about maiming an infant for all of his life, nothing else. Not only do you fail to address this argument and instead opt for "MY DICK IS GREAT", now you have to resort to cheap fallacies and ad hominems.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 6, 2012)

How the hell is there a right for "physical integrity" but there isn't a right for life ? how can you be pro giving Parents the right to choose whether the baby should live or not but they can't decide the way his thingy looks ?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> How the hell is there a right for "physical integrity" but there isn't a right for life ? how can you be pro giving Parents the right to choose whether the baby should live or not but they can't decide the way his thingy looks ?



I don't know, you'll have to ask someone who actually believes those stawmen you just made.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 6, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> I don't know, you'll have to ask someone who actually believes those stawmen you just made.



That's not a strawman.  The only reason I didn't bring up this point is because I didn't want to hijack this debate, but xenopyre made a good point: we are concerned about the physical integrity of a small portion of a sexual organ but not the life of a fetus?  Should circumcision be allowed if it were somehow feasible to do in the womb?


----------



## hammer (Jul 6, 2012)

I dont think that's his point, and his argument is terribad.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 6, 2012)

baconbits said:


> That's not a strawman.  The only reason I didn't bring up this point is because I didn't want to hijack this debate, but xenopyre made a good point: we are concerned about the physical integrity of a small portion of a sexual organ but not the life of a fetus? Should circumcision be allowed if it were somehow feasible to do in the womb?



Abortion is primarily about the integrity of the female body.

Circumcision is also about that.

As for your last question: Circumcision should be allowed if it was reversible.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

baconbits said:


> That's not a strawman.  The only reason I didn't bring up this point is because I didn't want to hijack this debate, but xenopyre made a good point: we are concerned about the physical integrity of a small portion of a sexual organ but not the life of a fetus?



Yes of course, I don't see the problem.

I'm concerned about a person and I'm not concerned about a fetus, how difficult is that to understand?



> Should circumcision be allowed if it were somehow feasible to do in the womb?



No, of course not. There's a difference between terminating pregnancy and maiming a fetus with the intent of still giving birth to it.

That's like saying if someone's family can decide to turn off life support in case the person falls into a vegetative state, they should also be allowed to hack off an arm of his or take out a few organs for shits and giggles.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 6, 2012)

baconbits said:


> That's not a strawman.  The only reason I didn't bring up this point is because I didn't want to hijack this debate, but xenopyre made a good point: we are concerned about the physical integrity of a small portion of a sexual organ but not the life of a fetus?  Should circumcision be allowed if it were somehow feasible to do in the womb?



I have to agree with the pro life crowd on this. 

If people are actually concerned about a surgical cosmetic procedure on babies, shouldn't there be just as much concern about abortion? If my sole concern were that children are able to grow up healthy, I would also want children to be born and not terminated.


----------



## Seph (Jul 6, 2012)

> You just change your argument with every post... We were talking about the legality of circumcision. I agree that parents should not be allowed to force religion on their children, but it's largely irrelevant, since they can just tell their kids that the bullshit their religion preaches is the truth, so the child will "want to" follow that religion. We can't ban parents from lying to their children either, that would just be impractical.
> 
> The only logical conclusion is that you let parents make all those decisions. Cosmetic surgery however, is something different entirely (which is why I'm still now sure why we're talking about this), because it demonstrably violates the child's right to physical integrity.



It's not just about the legality of circumcision--it's about what implications the legality of circumcision would have *on other laws*. I'm arguing that the law would seem like a self-contradiction. We _never_ talked about the legality of circumcision specifically, which is why we're talking about cosmetic surgeries--which aren't really much different at all from circumcision, in terms of physical consequences.



> So the foreskin is a deformity now?



Why can't the child want to keep his/her deformities? Maybe they make him/her feel special. It's their choice whether they want to keep them or not, and yet parents have the say until they turn 18.



> Important decisions that have to be made. Parents can't let their children take a debt, indeed children aren't allowed to sign any contracts, because it is assumed that they do not understand the ramifications.
> 
> Parents must choose a school for their children, parents must give their children something to eat, parents must raise their children one way or another. Those are things that cannot be avoided and so we give the parents as much leeway as possible, but generally parents are the guardians of their children. They don't own the child, it's not their pet or dress-up doll. They merely keep the child safe and try their best to raise it until it's old enough to care for itself.



Now you're stating your own personal opinion instead of reality (which I agree with, though, but that isn't the purpose of this argument). Parents still have the power to do things that aren't based on urgency/need, without the consent of their child. 

Speaking specifically, for the first time, circumcision should be legal _right now_ in order to avoid contradictions in the law, but depending on future changes on the law then it should become illegal.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I have to agree with the pro life crowd on this.
> 
> If people are actually concerned about a surgical cosmetic procedure on babies, shouldn't there be just as much concern about abortion? If my sole concern were that children are able to grow up healthy, I would also want children to be born and not terminated.



What kind of bullshit is this? 

Fetus =/= Baby

That's like the most obvious concept ever. Could we get past this pathetic strawmanning and back on topic?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Seph said:


> It's not just about the legality of circumcision--it's about what implications the legality of circumcision would have *on other laws*. I'm arguing that the law would seem like a self-contradiction. We _never_ talked about the legality of circumcision specifically, which is why we're talking about cosmetic surgeries--which aren't really much different at all from circumcision, in terms of physical consequences.



What consequences? Circumcision is the only form of legal maiming for children.

Name a specific law that would have to be changed as a result of this.



> Why can't the child want to keep his/her deformities? Maybe they make him/her feel special. It's their choice whether they want to keep them or not, and yet parents have the say until they turn 18.



It is an interesting point. I suppose I could agree so long as the deformity isn't detrimental to the child's health or prevents it from leading a normal life (which pretty much disqualifies most deformities).



> Now you're stating your own personal opinion instead of reality (which I agree with, though, but that isn't the purpose of this argument). Parents still have the power to do things that aren't based on urgency/need, without the consent of their child.
> 
> Speaking specifically, for the first time, circumcision should be legal _right now_ in order to avoid contradictions in the law, but depending on future changes on the law then it should become illegal.



I am stating the reality of the situation. The most important duty of a legal guardian is to keep their ward safe from harm. All else comes second and if they do not keep their child safe to the best of their abilities, it will be taken away from them.

Maiming the child is a direct violation of that duty.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 6, 2012)

Pretty sketchy really. A fetus is not a baby and yet will probably become a baby. Everyone understands that just because you're terminating a fetus, that doesn't mean you can divorce the concept of fetus from baby, the difference between the two being a mere matter of months and a birth. 

At the other end, circumcision is quite a pointless holdover from ancient tribal society. And yet it seems relatively harmless to the overall life of the child. It's cruel, yet isn't particularly damaging. 

I can rationalize abortion as the lesser of two evils, but I won't delude myself into believing it's anything more than killing what will be child.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Pretty sketchy really. A fetus is not a baby and yet will probably become a baby. Everyone understands that just because you're terminating a fetus, that doesn't mean you can divorce the concept of fetus from baby, the difference between the two being a mere matter of months and a birth.



Again: Terminating pregnancy =/= Maiming for life

And "a few months and a birth" is a funny way of saying "the ability to breathe, the ability to feel pain, a sense of touch, having lips, being able to open its eyes and all the shit that happens during the third trimester".



> At the other end, circumcision is quite a pointless holdover from ancient tribal society. And yet it seems relatively harmless to the overall life of the child.
> 
> I can rationalize abortion as the lesser of two evils, but I won't delude myself into believing it's anything more than killing what will be child.



It doesn't matter how harmless circumcision is. There are plenty of vestigial or almost vestigial parts in and on the human body, which we wouldn't dream of removing just because the parents want to.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 6, 2012)

What if more children are actually harmed prohibiting circumcision? Say that no legit doctor will perform medically safe circumcision due to the law. These people believe that their god commands them to remove a baby's foreskin. Many who could be persuaded to use a real doctor might go underground to some crazy rabbi or imam. 

I'm not a supporter of circumcision of course, but you could actually end up seriously harming more children. Kind of like when abortion was illegal and desperate women tried all kinds of dangerous methods to end unwanted pregnancies.

This issue is nowhere near straightforward. And to be honest, I don't find your replies to be all that persuasive. It mainly relies on the legal argument of when do rights apply to living things when many people do not agree on this. Everyone can understand the science of the nervous system and appendage formation, but that doesn't necessarily convince people on when a living thing should have rights.


----------



## Seph (Jul 6, 2012)

> What consequences? Circumcision is the only form of legal maiming for children.
> 
> Name a specific law that would have to be changed as a result of this.



Maiming: _to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple: The explosion maimed him for life. _

Cutting off a sixth finger / toe or another sort of harmless deformity, according to this definition, is maiming as well. So it does seem like there are plenty of laws to change... it's not really any different from circumcision ignoring the fact that everyone has foreskin.



> I am stating the reality of the situation. The most important duty of a legal guardian is to keep their ward safe from harm. All else comes second and if they do not keep their child safe to the best of their abilities, it will be taken away from them.
> 
> Maiming the child is a direct violation of that duty.



Yet, in reality, Muslims are allowed to make their children Muslims, and parents are allowed to send their children to schools with drug use, gangs and other sorts of bad influences. I'd argue that educating your child to become a Muslim is infinitely worse than circumcision.

I think the difference is that religious / school influences aren't as direct as circumcision, and that's why circumcision is banned but the former is not.


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 6, 2012)

I don't see the big deal with getting your kid circumcised.

I think it should be something that the parents should decide on, not the government. And certainly not some random person on the internet.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 6, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Pretty sketchy really. A fetus is not a baby and yet will probably become a baby. Everyone understands that just because you're terminating a fetus, that doesn't mean you can divorce the concept of fetus from baby, the difference between the two being a mere matter of months and a birth.
> 
> At the other end, circumcision is quite a pointless holdover from ancient tribal society. And yet it seems relatively harmless to the overall life of the child. It's cruel, yet isn't particularly damaging.
> 
> I can rationalize abortion as the lesser of two evils, but I won't delude myself into believing it's anything more than killing what will be child.


This is just you being religious. That's not going to convince sauf or anyone who isn't religious.




			
				Basilikos said:
			
		

> I think it should be something that the parents should decide on, not the government. *And certainly not some random person on the internet.*


Exactly where in this thread has anyone suggested that we appoint "some random person on the internet" as the decider for all circumcision-related questions?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 6, 2012)

impersonal said:


> I'm usually fairly respectful of religious people. I don't particularly like their beliefs, but as long as they don't force their nonsense on me I leave them alone, because I know that people can have very different opinions on stuff, and still be nice, and also (depending) intelligent. *But here you're invading a somewhat serious discussion with your religious nonsense. I don't care what your guru told you about abortion. It's not relevant.*



I'm an atheist 

Imagine seeing a newly born baby about to be circumcised. We get upset because the baby is about to endure a cosmetic procedure that violates its rights against grievous bodily harm. But ending that life 4 months earlier would be perfectly fine. 

That doesn't give you pause and make you think? Not necessarily about abortion or the legality of it, but morally.



impersonal said:


> a) Sauf is an atheist. He doesn't care what your guru told you about the fetus' soul or whatnot. And yes, that's what it boils down to.
> b) The argument is basically "sure, circumcision is wrong, but so is abortion so HA!". How is that even an argument?



My guru? Hahaha, this arrogance is so typical.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Seph said:


> Maiming: _to deprive of the use of some part of the body by wounding or the like; cripple: The explosion maimed him for life. _
> 
> Cutting off a sixth finger / toe or another sort of harmless deformity, according to this definition, is maiming as well. So it does seem like there are plenty of laws to change... it's not really any different from circumcision *ignoring the fact that everyone has foreskin*.



Stone and water are really pretty similar, ignoring the fact that they're completely different.

Removing something everyone's born with is not the same as removing something that only this one person is born with.



> Yet, in reality, Muslims are allowed to make their children Muslims, and parents are allowed to send their children to schools with drug use, gangs and other sorts of bad influences. I'd argue that educating your child to become a Muslim is infinitely worse than circumcision.
> 
> I think the difference is that religious / school influences aren't as direct as circumcision, and that's why circumcision is banned but the former is not.



How does that conflict with keeping the child safe? I think you just don't want to get it. The first and foremost duty of a legal guardian is to keep their ward safe from harm. If they can't or don't want to do that, the state interferes.

Maiming the ward for no reason is a direct violation of that, it violates the human rights of the infant.



Basilikos said:


> I don't see the big deal with getting your kid circumcised.
> 
> I think it should be something that the parents should decide on, not the government. And certainly not some random person on the internet.



And definitely not the person himself, right? That would just be insane, letting people decide for themselves whether or not they want to have their body altered for the rest of their lives.

Why the bias towards the parents, though? Since you don't think consent should matter at all, then the state or random people from the internet would seem equally qualified.


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 6, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Exactly where in this thread has anyone suggested that we appoint "some random person on the internet" as the decider for all circumcision-related questions?


The fact that you et al are trying to take the place of that child's parents when it's not your kid and none of your business.



Saufsoldat said:


> And definitely not the person himself, right? That would just be insane, letting people decide for themselves whether or not they want to have their body altered for the rest of their lives.
> 
> Why the bias towards the parents, though? Since you don't think consent should matter at all, then the state or random people from the internet would seem equally qualified.


The state and random people aren't that child's parents.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> The state and random people aren't that child's parents.



Refusing to recognize sarcasm now?

And convenently ignoring the whole consent part. Yeah, don't worry about what a person wants as long as we know what the parents want. It's funny how people hate on the government for "knowing better" but are perfectly fine with parents "knowing better" when it comes to the physical integrity of a human being.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 6, 2012)

Well its not like there's many jews in Germany anyway...


Too soon?

(Its okay because I'm Jewish ...prolly will get negged for this post regardless)


(Though I'm a rather bad jew, uncircumcised to boot. 'Ritualistic genital mutilation' my father called it)


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 6, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Refusing to recognize sarcasm now?
> 
> And convenently ignoring the whole consent part. Yeah, don't worry about what a person wants as long as we know what the parents want. It's funny how people hate on the government for "knowing better" but are perfectly fine with parents "knowing better" when it comes to the physical integrity of a human being.


LOL classic Sauf. 

Consent? When we're babies and wee little kids, our parents taught us and did all sorts of things for us without our consent. Why is this any different?

And "physical integrity"? It's just a bit of skin. How many guys do you see walking around all bitter and shit because their parents got them circumcised?  If anything, it's more socially accepted for guys to be circumcised anyway, at least in the U.S.

So yeah, I don't see a problem with the parents deciding on the matter.

That's all I'm going to say on this.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> LOL classic Sauf.
> 
> Consent? When we're babies and wee little kids, our parents taught us and did all sorts of things for us without our consent. Why is this any different?



Because it has irreversible consequences for the rest of that human's life and is completely unwarranted.



> And "physical integrity"? It's just a bit of skin.



Eyelids are just a bit of skin, oversimplifying won't help you here.



> How many guys do you see walking around all bitter and shit because they're parents got them circumcised?  If anything, it's more socially accepted for guys to be circumcised anyway, at least in the U.S.



Has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If they enjoy being circumcized, it wouldn't be any problem for them to do it as adults.



> So yeah, I don't see a problem with the parents deciding on the matter.
> 
> That's all I'm going to say on this matter.



Swing and a miss.



Grand Lurker B said:


> Maiming? Oh, so dramatic. . We're talking about removing of a little piece of SKIN that every man can do without, nothing more - which as far as I'm concerned, and everone else I ever heard of, has no downside, but at least one or two upsides, but let's not get in to that.



It has no medical advantages, it is completely unwarranted.

And I don't have to be dramatic, just truthful.



> You're equating this to the amputation of toes is not just ridiculous and simply wrong, it's also a big insult to all who lost toes due to torture, frostbites or accidents. I'm sure everyone of them would give up there foreskin gladly (if they still have it), if that would bring them there toes back.



I said toe, not toes. We don't actually need the little one and some people do in fact get it surgicall removed. Why aren't they allowed to do it to their infant children?



> In principle you're right, this is a big deal (bodly harm). But in practice it's just a piece of skin that nobody who lost it ever missed. So I ask you where is the harm? People who got circumsized can't see it and isn't that what counts?



Sorry if I do not feel like compromising when it comes to this country's constitution for the sake of bronze age barabarism. I guess I'm just weird like that.


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 6, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Because it has irreversible consequences for the rest of that human's life and is completely unwarranted.


Oh noes.



> Eyelids are just a bit of skin, oversimplifying won't help you here.


Totally comparable. 



> Has nothing to do with the argument at hand. If they enjoy being circumcized, it wouldn't be any problem for them to do it as adults.


Yeah, I bet.



> herpity derp


K.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 6, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Totally comparable.



Yes. I hope now you realize why it's a bad idea to cut it off.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2012)

No Sauf, I remember correctly.

The child was like 5 I believe. He wasn't a fetus, or even an infant. You told me "Kill him off, to prevent him from having more offspring like himself. That way 



Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> Abortion is primarily about the integrity of the female body.
> 
> Circumcision is also about that.
> 
> As for your last question: Circumcision should be allowed if it was reversible.



It wasn't "abortion"

Sauf wanted the kid to be killed off, when he was already born. 


Which I find this crusade for him wanting to protect the foreskin on a baby and not for the life of a child just disturbing.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 7, 2012)

This topic sexually excites me.

Is that weird?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Oh noes.



That's all you can think of? You're pathetic.



> Totally comparable.



Your argument was "it's just a bit of skin". Is it my fault now that you have piss poor logic?



> Yeah, I bet.
> 
> K.



Concession noted, have a nice day.



Flow said:


> No Sauf, I remember correctly.
> 
> The child was like 5 I believe. He wasn't a fetus, or even an infant. You told me "Kill him off, to prevent him from having more offspring like himself. That way



I can make up bullshit about you as well.

I definitely remember you wanted to exterminate all Jews.

Now go play in traffic.



Grand Lurker B said:


> Unwarranted to you yes. Not to others. And It has noe medical disadvantages either.
> 
> You are being dramatic just the same.



It certainly does have medical disadvantages. It permanently removes a part of the body that was fully functioning.



> ?
> I need all my toes, I think you and everyone else would miss even the little toe infinitely more than the miss or would miss their foreskin. Seriously it's not even up for debate. The pain alone that amputation causes....



Circumcision causes pain as well and no, you do not need all your toes. 

There's still plenty of other vestigial parts of the human body. What about male nipples? Should parents be allowed to just cut them off on the infant?



> Well than we're all lucky that you're not ruling over us, staying on principle for the principle's sake has never done anyone any good.



The fuck? So you don't care about your human rights as they are guaranteed to you in your constitution so long as they're just violated a little and the violation is socially acceptable?


----------



## WT (Jul 7, 2012)

Germany should also ban parents giving their child a haircut and cutting their toenails.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 7, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Germany should also ban parents giving their child a haircut and cutting their toenails.


Except those grow back and aren't painful to remove.


----------



## Taco (Jul 7, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Germany should also ban parents giving their child a haircut and cutting their toenails.



Except *NO* because those grow back.


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 7, 2012)

Because they totally remove the skin while the baby is awake.


----------



## WT (Jul 7, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Except those grow back and aren't painful to remove.



Some kids would bald eventually. 

Although I don't bald, if I did, I'd be pissed at the thought that as a kid I didn't make the most of my hair.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 7, 2012)

> Some kids would bald eventually.
> 
> Although I don't bald, if I did, I'd be pissed at the thought that as a kid I didn't make the most of my hair.


Yes, but most people don't have magically shrinking penis skins that eventually just disappear, so balding really isn't equivalent.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Alright, you want to disregard the percentages ? I'm faced with an unfair ultimatum who do I pick ? The cut asshole or the uncut gentleman ? Neither. Both of them fail to meet my standards.


A high percentage that's only possible because of overwhelming traditionalism. That's all. Yet it's still not high enough to not make this a conscious bias to be worried about in the first place. You don't seem to get the point that the conundrum by itself isn't what is at issue, as far as blatantly obvious rhetorical questions go, but the fact that suggesting foreskin or no foreskin is the number one concern for romance.


> I've been discussing my preferences and how it was influenced while replying to multiple users,


And once again, you attempted to argue as if said preference shouldn't be considered odd as if just because you come from a certain region that isn't odd by a more reliable and bigger scale that shows the most likely direction for a trend.


> I've never cared about circumcisions worldwide statues and if I remember correctly I did not engage in any discussion where the worldwide view was con concerned.  I'm not asking you to care, you care enough to give and take which I welcome.



It doesn't matter whether or not you care. The issue is that attempting to suggest someone can't judge your supposed standards in terms of logic and worldwide standard just because of your region is pretty weak as arguments go. Once again, people who happen to know much on the subject will find your decision odd as far as minority viewpoints on a global scale go. The fact you originate from a region that's lacking in certain economic and social progressions, especially in comparison to Germany that is still the point of interest from the OP article, isn't helping the argument. It makes about as much sense as a white person in Mississippi arguing they're against dating another race because mixing is somehow unnatural to their point of view. His background shows he's influenced by a particular form of nurture but is in no way useful as an actual argument for such a bias.


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

White Tiger said:


> Germany should also ban parents giving their child a haircut and cutting their toenails.



I think you just won the Stupid Point Award of the century.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 7, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Except those grow back and aren't painful to remove.



Some haircuts can scar kids for life.


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Some haircuts can scar kids for life.



Blame the barber, not the parent.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Because they totally remove the skin while the baby is awake.



The religious types actually do that. But even if you get it done in the hospital, it hurts like a bitch. I clearly remember peeing to be extremely painful for a week or so after the surgery.



White Tiger said:


> Germany should also ban parents giving their child a haircut and cutting their toenails.



I guess your brain just shuts down the second your bronze age barbarism is questioned.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 7, 2012)

Seph said:


> Blame the barber, not the parent.



Parent enabled the barber without consent


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Parent enabled the barber without consent



I think you have no idea what you're saying.


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> The religious types actually do that. But even if you get it done in the hospital, it hurts like a bitch. I clearly remember peeing to be extremely painful for a week or so after the surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess your brain just shuts down the second your bronze age barbarism is questioned.



My pee was painful before my surgery so I was unable to tell the difference,  my doctor just told me to just pee in the tub.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

hammer said:


> My pee was painful before my surgery so I was unable to tell the difference,  my doctor just told me to just pee in the tub.



And this changes what exactly?


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> And this changes what exactly?



if you pee in water the pain is reduced.


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

hammer said:


> My pee was painful before my surgery so I was unable to tell the difference,  my doctor just told me to just pee in the tub.



That's nice.


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

Seph said:


> That's nice.



it was better then being in pain every time I pee for two weeks


----------



## Basilikos (Jul 7, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> The religious types actually do that.


Only Jews.



> But even if you get it done in the hospital, it hurts like a bitch. I clearly remember peeing to be extremely painful for a week or so after the surgery.


Then you got incompetent doctors.


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

I am actually curious on the name of the infection I had.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 7, 2012)

Basilikos said:


> Because they totally remove the skin while the baby is awake.



Again you post something that is entirely true! Here are some pictures you can watch:


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

^I know for a fact they put me to asleep


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 7, 2012)

hammer said:


> ^I know for a fact they put me to asleep



Then you were lucky!


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

actionjesus said:


> Then you were lucky!



not really I doubt they want a man to scream WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING TO MY DICK YOU ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".), so they put me to sleep


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jul 7, 2012)

> There's still plenty of other vestigial parts of the human body. What about male nipples? Should parents be allowed to just cut them off on the infant?



Does the same logic apply to tails and sixth fingers and shit ?


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

Grand Lurker B said:


> Where is the disadvantage?
> 
> I do. Don't tell me what I need. And amputation vs. cutting of some useless skin. No competion.
> 
> ...



Hey, if sex feels better with foreskin then I'm pretty sure I'd rather have foreskin than not.


----------



## Seph (Jul 7, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Does the same logic apply to tails and sixth fingers and shit ?



Yes. It should be the child's decision if he wants to cut off his sixth finger or not.


----------



## ThaKakarot (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> I would not get together with uncut guys.



I hope you had your clit cut of when you were an infant.

Otherwise you're just a filthy hypocrite


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

hammer said:


> if you pee in water the pain is reduced.



I meant what does it have to do with the argument here? Circumcision is painful, period.



Basilikos said:


> Only Jews.



And muslims. And several hospitals since putting an infant under is still pretty dangerous.



> Then you got incompetent doctors.



Yeah, I think we're done here, since you refuse to engage in any sort of rational debate.



Grand Lurker B said:


> Where is the disadvantage?



Reduced sexual pleasure and a multitude of complications that can arise from the procedure itself (bleeding, post-op infections, etc).



> I do. Don't tell me what I need. And amputation vs. cutting of some useless skin. No competion.







> Nipples? You think it has no disadvantages to have no nipples? You think a guy at the beach without nipples wouldn't be attracting unwanted attention, there a disadvantage right there. And I hope you just chose to forgot the pleasures a man can derive from his nipples if handled right by a woman (or man).



Your idiocy is almost funny, really...

Why do you think he'd attract unwanted attention? Because it's not normal to have his nipples removed. If nobody on the planet was circumcised, then someone without foreskin would seem just as weird as someone without nipples would seem to you right now. Do you even think before posting?

As for the pleasure, same is true for the glans, which becomes less sensitive once after circumcision.



> Oh ffs, get down from your horse. It's just a piece of skin no one cares about.



And you get to decide that for the rest of humanity because...? A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the individual from the whims of the masses, that's precisely what this ruling is about: Not allowing someone to hurt the physical integrity of another without their consent. No matter how socially acceptable the maiming is, the individual has a right to an intact body.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

Elim Rawne said:


> Does the same logic apply to tails and sixth fingers and shit ?





Grand Lurker B said:


> Good one! I guess in the world of Saufsoldat every child would have to grow up with his deformities until he's old enough to decide for himself if he likes to be a freak.



If you guys had bothered reading my posts, you'd know that I already said it might apply to those as well. Although we are talking about deformities here, not something that 100% of all men are born with.


----------



## hammer (Jul 7, 2012)

sauf my only problem is with the people who say it is 100% cosmetic, I understand your point but in my case my mom left me uncut to spite my grandparents and then I got infected and had to get it cut later in life, the idea it is 100% cosmetic is silly.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

hammer said:


> sauf my only problem is with the people who say it is 100% cosmetic, I understand your point but in my case my mom left me uncut to spite my grandparents and then I got infected and had to get it cut later in life, the idea it is 100% cosmetic is silly.



The vast majority of circumcisions are not done out of medical necessity, but for purely cosmetical or superstitious reasons.

Surgery should always be a last resort for health problems, not the standard solution.



Grand Lurker B said:


> So what? I prefer woman who shave their armpits and legs and least trim their pubic hair. I also like some perfume on her and some makeup can't hurt either. Call me a hypocrite but that won't make me do the same and turn in to a transvestite.



The things you talk about are all reversible. If a woman wants boyfriend to have something done that he will carry with him for the rest of his life, she should be willing to do the same in return.

Although Eli is of course lying to make circumcision seem like something more desirable and less barbaric.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 7, 2012)

Grand Lurker B said:


> Premature ejaculation and complications that can arise from having foreskin. Pretty much evens out.



There is no connection between having an intact penis and premature ejaculation.

Those "complications" are called diseases or conditions and they can occur in any part of the body. No need to single out the foreskin. Of course it's not even close to evening out. That's like saying routinely removing the appendix in infants is alright, because "complications" can arise from having one.



> Oh my, aren't we getting bitchy.
> 
> If circumcision wasn't such a ageold, widerspread and common thing practiced on every third male we wouldn't have this conversation. You think this makes no difference and principle always comes before logic and practicalitly? You are being an idiot.



Well, if you're going to stick to your appeal to tradition fallacy, I cannot help you. I'm glad that judges here agree that tradition doesn't trump human rights.



> Oh and losing you're nipples and all pleasure you can have with it is not the same as being circumicised and being able to 'perform' longer, mind you.



Again, studies do not show a significant link either way.



> Let's ban child vaccinations then. I'm all for it. Studies show that vaccinated babies get sick more often than un-vaccinated ones.



No, they don't.



> Some sicknesses are even almost exclusive to vaccinated babies.



Such as?



> That seems much more important than wasting time and energy on a futile attempt to save some useless piece of skin. Futile because people gonna keep doing it, cause it's not maiming and does not have any disadvatages.



I never said I'm opposed to circumcision, not sure what gave you that idea.


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

ThaKakarot said:


> I hope you had your clit cut of when you were an infant.
> 
> Otherwise you're just a filthy hypocrite



Clits and foreskin are totally different things. Go back to your eighth grade biology. 



neodragzero said:


> A high percentage that's only possible because of overwhelming traditionalism.


So? How it came to be is irrelevant, what's relevant is the fact that this percentage exists.  



> That's all. Yet it's still not high enough to not make this a conscious bias to be worried about in the first place. You don't seem to get the point that the conundrum by itself isn't what is at issue, as far as blatantly obvious rhetorical questions go, but the fact that suggesting foreskin or no foreskin is the number one concern for romance.


My preferences might be trivial to you, but whoops, this is how I work. 




> And once again, you attempted to argue as if said preference shouldn't be considered odd as if just because you come from a certain region that isn't odd by a more reliable and bigger scale that shows the most likely direction for a trend.


Other aspects of that region and how they compare to the rest of the world are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It shouldn't be odd that I prefer cut guys over uncut guys due to the fact the I come from a region where cut guys make up more than 80%.



> It doesn't matter whether or not you care. The issue is that attempting to suggest someone can't judge your supposed standards in terms of logic and worldwide standard just because of your region is pretty weak as arguments go. Once again, people who happen to know much on the subject will find your decision odd as far as minority viewpoints on a global scale go. The fact you originate from a region that's lacking in certain economic and social progressions, especially in comparison to Germany that is still the point of interest from the OP article, isn't helping the argument. It makes about as much sense as a white person in Mississippi arguing they're against dating another race because mixing is somehow unnatural to their point of view. His background shows he's influenced by a particular form of nurture but is in no way useful as an actual argument for such a bias.


Judge all you want, I just fail to see the oddity in the matter since you already know the influence. I don't like foreskin because it's a major turnoff not because I think it's unnatural so your attempt at demonizing my preferences is pretty cheap.


----------



## ThaKakarot (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Clits and foreskin are totally different things. Go back to your eighth grade biology.



They both give sexual pleasure and they both get cut off by delusional ignorant fucks.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

Jesus christ, do I have to make a list about circumcision like I did for homosexuality? I feel like every page I could just go back and copy and pasta what I said earlier in the thread.

Yet again, some of the stupidest fucking arguments ever being made here. Such as the good old, "Almost no sensitivity = I can last longer in bed."


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

"Human rights"

LMFAO


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 7, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Jesus christ, do I have to make a list about circumcision like I did for homosexuality? I feel like every page I could just go back and copy and pasta what I said earlier in the thread.
> 
> Yet again, some of the stupidest fucking arguments ever being made here. Such as the good old, "Almost no sensitivity = I can last longer in bed."


You said it yourself earlier( or was it someone else? too lazy to check), we can still feel pleasure because the brain knows that we're supposed to feel pleasure and therefore the foreskin is redundant since with or without it we can still feel the pleasure.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> You said yourself earlier( or was it someone else? too lazy to check), we can still feel pleasure because the brain knows that we're supposed to feel pleasure and therfore the foreskin is redundant since with or without it we can still feel the pleasure.



Or you know, people can still feel pleasure because the dick still works just fine.

People seem to think that the almighty foreskin is the sole thing that brings pleasure in sex and that a circumcised penis is devoid of any sensitivity.

As per usual, the caf? is filled with ignorant shitheads with a lot of opinions on subjects they know nothing about.


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

ThaKakarot said:


> They both give sexual pleasure and they both get cut off by delusional ignorant fucks.



Except removing the foreskin wont deprive you from sexual pleasure. Try again.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 7, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I'm an atheist


Religion was the only explanation that made sense. Congratulation, you're just being completely nonsensical.


Shinigami Perv said:


> Imagine seeing a newly born baby about to be circumcised. We get upset because the baby is about to endure a cosmetic procedure that violates its rights against grievous bodily harm. But ending that life 4 months earlier would be perfectly fine.
> 
> That doesn't give you pause and make you think? Not necessarily about abortion or the legality of it, but morally.


No. It doesn't give me pause. It's a retarded reasoning. I can explain this to you by PM or in a thread about abortion as this is absolutely irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Religion was the only explanation that made sense. Congratulation, you're just being completely nonsensical.





I'd say THAT makes a little more sense than "religion".


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> You said it yourself earlier( or was it someone else? too lazy to check), we can still feel pleasure because the brain knows that we're supposed to feel pleasure and therefore the foreskin is redundant since with or without it we can still feel the pleasure.



That was about the stimulation required for orgasms. Not how good something feels before that.
Let me just repost this:



> In a normal male, ~70% of all the nerves in the penis are in the foreskin, with 100% of all the pleasure-only sensing nerves (erogenous nerves) being in the foreskin. The glans only have general nerve endings like somatic skin cells, it's actually because the brain attributes them to pleasure that they actually feel pleasurable, but they aren't purpose built for pleasure. No, the foreskin's nerves are purpose built for pleasure, and it's because of how the erogenous nerves are wired to the other nerves in the penis that providing sensation to the foreskin not only makes your foreskin feel pleasurable, but because nature decided to take some short-cuts on wiring, it also makes your glans feel pleasurable even with no sensation directly.
> 
> I already mentioned how removal of the foreskin destroys it's primary purpose of protecting the nerves in the glans and the underside of the foreskin and thus causes the glans to harden to compensate which kills many of the nerves left inside, but circumcised males are only able to feel pleasure because of the local attribution of those nerves, whether or not those nerves are sending pain, touch, or temperature signals doesn't matter when aroused.
> 
> ...





AfterGlow said:


> I'd say THAT makes a little more sense than "religion".



Don't cite WHO please, they are fucking morons on this topic because they took politics over science. If you want to cite something on circumcision, cite any of the other medical organizations in the world. They all made statements against WHO calling WHO unprofessional and unscientific for supporting circumcision.


----------



## ThaKakarot (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Except removing the foreskin wont deprive you from sexual pleasure. Try again.



cut clit woman can still get sexual pleasure from the vaginal wall.

Try again derp.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

ThaKakarot said:


> cut clit woman can still get sexual pleasure from the vaginal wall.
> 
> Try again derp.



How fucking stupid are you, seriously?

GTFO.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Or you know, people can still feel pleasure because the dick still works just fine.
> 
> People seem to think that the almighty foreskin is the sole thing that brings pleasure in sex and that a circumcised penis is devoid of any sensitivity.
> *
> As per usual, the caf? is filled with ignorant shitheads with a lot of opinions on subjects they know nothing about.*



The current argument is about whether circumcision hinders sexual pleasure. If you look at the scientific literature, everything hints that it does. For example, men who have been circumcized after having had some sexual experiences report almost unanimously an important loss in sexual pleasure / sensitivity. That these men still experienced enough pleasure to make sex pleasurable and to keep their penis functional is certain, but they were still missing something.



Whether the same applies to men who have been circumcized at a very young age seems uncertain (it is fairly difficult to prove anything related to conscious experience), but is very likely to be the case. Circumcision removes _precisely the part that is naturally in contact with the partner_. It stands to reason that evolution would have made it a very sensitive area, and it has been shown that the foreskin is indeed very densely innervated. Furthermore, the tradition of circumcision was born, in the US at least, and often in other parts of the world where it is practiced, from religious and moral doctrines banning sexual pleasure.

In conclusion, as per usual, the caf? is filled with ignorant shitheads with a lot of opinions on subjects they know nothing about.


			
				AfterGlow said:
			
		

> How fucking stupid are you, seriously?
> 
> GTFO.


His argument was sound. I really think someone should give you a warning/ban for your trolling/inability to debate properly.


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

ThaKakarot said:


> cut clit woman can still get sexual pleasure from the vaginal wall.
> 
> Try again derp.



I stop here             .


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

impersonal said:


> The current argument is about whether circumcision hinders sexual pleasure.



It doesn't, as circumcised men still experience sexual pleasure.

Argument over.

(The whole "amount of pleasure" I find is a silly, and subjective, discussion with zero scientific value. Measuring the amount of pleasure somebody experiences during sex is impossible.)


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> How fucking stupid are you, seriously?
> 
> GTFO.



Want to use an argument against him? Or just not handle it?



impersonal said:


> The current argument is about whether circumcision hinders sexual pleasure. If you look at the scientific literature, everything hints that it does. For example, men who have been circumcized after having had some sexual experiences report almost unanimously an important loss in sexual pleasure / sensitivity. That these men still experienced enough pleasure to make sex pleasurable and to keep their penis functional is certain, but they were still missing something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's almost like circumcision was MEANT to make sex less fun. Oh wait, it was! Just read my post above.



AfterGlow said:


> It doesn't, as circumcised men still experience sexual pleasure.
> 
> Argument over.


That's not the argument.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Want to use an argument against him? Or just not handle it?



Handle it? What's there to handle? Some fucking troll comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is not worthy to be acknowledged, kind of how I won't waste my time trying to discuss something with a person who thinks the Jews are running the world together with the lizardmen.




> That's not the argument.



The "argument" according to Improbable was about if circumcised men feel sexual pleasure.

They clearly do.

Argument thus over.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> It doesn't, as circumcised men still experience sexual pleasure.
> *
> Argument over.*
> 
> (The whole "amount of pleasure" I find is a silly, and subjective, discussion with zero scientific value. Measuring the amount of pleasure somebody experiences during sex is impossible.)



The bold part is immature, and the rest is not even worthy of an answer.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

impersonal said:


> The bold part is immature, and the rest is not worthy of an answer.



Can't blame me for turning your own stupid formulation against yourself.

Also, I reckon you find the whole "amounts of pleasure impossible to objectively measure" unworthy of an answer because it's true and you can't find any precious scientific document to counter that simple fact.

Do I enjoy sex and find it pleasurable? - Yes. Very simple.

Do I enjoy sex and find it more or less pleasurable as some other guy who may or may not be circumcised? - I wouldn't know, and neither would he.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Handle it? What's there to handle? Some fucking troll comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is not worthy to be acknowledged, kind of how I won't waste my time trying to discuss something with a person who thinks the Jews are running the world together with the lizardmen.



Why is it not worthy? Because in the US we think it's okay to circumcise males even though they suffer the same problems that females would if they were circumcised.



> The "argument" according to Improbable was about if circumcised men feel sexual pleasure.
> 
> They clearly do.
> 
> Argument thus over.



No one made the argument that circumcised men don't feel sexual pleasure. But it's obvious to anyone of any scientific mind that they feel much less. Hence, why Kellogg did it specifically to reduce sexual pleasure.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> Why is it not worthy? Because in the US we think it's okay to circumcise males even though they suffer the same problems that females would if they were circumcised.



Last time I checked, it didn't take a circumcised male 20 minutes to take a piss and sex wasn't reduced to nothing but pain.

LMAO, "same problems" 



> No one made the argument that circumcised men don't feel sexual pleasure. But it's obvious to anyone of any scientific mind that they feel much less. Hence, why Kellogg did it specifically to reduce sexual pleasure.



Check back with me when there is a surefire and objective way of measuring the amount of pleasure somebody feels when having sex and putting this on a pleasure scale. Once we can do that, we can start measuring pleasure of people to find out how pleasurable sex is to circumcised and uncircumcised men.


----------



## ThaKakarot (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> How fucking stupid are you, seriously?
> 
> GTFO.



Have you ever had sex?  have a gf right now?
Tonight stick your fingers up her vagina and make nice circular motions without touching the clit. 
I assure you she will have pleasure. ( pretend your middle and index fingers are little tiny legs and have a jaunty stroll around inside her for fun for both of you )

I never said and will not say that the clit isn't a great source of sexual pleasure.
Here's the clincher though... SO IS THE FUCKING FORESKIN .



Eli said:


> I stop here             .



I accept your declaration of defeat my good albeit horribly prejudiced lady.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Last time I checked, it didn't take a circumcised male 20 minutes to take a piss and sex wasn't reduced to nothing but pain.
> 
> LMAO, "same problems"



No one said that. You're just strawmanning.





> Check back with me when there is a surefire and objective way of measuring the amount of pleasure somebody feels when having sex and putting this on a pleasure scale. Once we can do that, we can start measuring pleasure of people to find out how pleasurable sex is to circumcised and uncircumcised men.



Kellogg was pretty smart in determining that circumcision makes sex less pleasurable and more painful. Read up on him. But here's a hint: When you take a normal male who's had sex, and then circumcise him. He'll say it's less pleasurable and more painful. Or how about women who've had partners of both states? They know which is more or less painful.

When many of these people say the same thing about it and it coincides with the evidence that circumcision destroys ~80% of the nerves in the penis and 100% of the nerves that are designed for sexual pleasure.

Source: Fleiss, Paul M., and Frederick M. Hodges. "What Doctors Don't Tell You About Circumcision." MENsight Magazine. N.p., 2008. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. 
Both of whom are MDs who used to support circumcision and did it themselves.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

ThaKakarot said:


> Have you ever had sex?  have a gf right now?
> Tonight stick your fingers up her vagina and make nice circular motions without touching the clit.
> I assure you she will have pleasure. ( pretend your middle and index fingers are little tiny legs and have a jaunty stroll around inside her for fun for both of you )
> 
> ...



Except my gf wouldn't have had her clitoris, as well as her inner and outer labia removed. 

Also, only a moron who is too ignorant to open his mouth on the subject would compare female mutilation with male circumcision, especially from a medical point of view.



This entire BS about male circumcision has nothing to do with medical implications, it's just another one of "humanism's" ugly faces.



Toroxus said:


> No one said that. You're just strawmanning.



Oh no, no no no no, no you do not try to pull that fucking strawman BS on me you little shit.

You said, and I quote; "Because in the US we think it's okay to circumcise males even though *they suffer the same problems that females would* if they were circumcised."

This proves how fucking little you know about the subject.
You can't even compare the hell which female genital mutilation is to male circumcision. Educate your fucking ass.



> Late complications may vary depending on the type of FGM performed.[42] The formation of scars and keloids can lead to strictures, obstruction or fistula formation of the urinary and genital tracts. Urinary tract sequalae include damage to urethra and bladder with infections and incontinence. Genital tract sequelae include vaginal and pelvic infections, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and infertility.[43] Complete obstruction of the vagina results in hematocolpos and hematometra.[42] Other complications include epidermoid cysts that may become infected, neuroma formation, typically involving nerves that supplied the clitoris, and pelvic pain.[47]
> FGM may complicate pregnancy and place women at higher risk for obstetrical problems, which are more common with the more extensive FGM procedures.[42] Thus, in women with Type III FGM who have developed vesicovaginal or rectovaginal fistulae—holes that allows urine and feces to seep into the vagina—it is difficult to obtain clear urine samples as part of prenatal care making the diagnosis of certain conditions harder, such as preeclampsia.[43] Cervical evaluation during labour may be impeded, and labour prolonged. Third-degree laceration, anal sphincter damage, and emergency caesarean section are more common in FGM women than in controls.[42] Neonatal mortality is increased in women with FGM. The WHO estimated that an additional 10–20 babies die per 1,000 deliveries as a result of FGM; the estimate was based on a 2006 study conducted on 28,393 women attending delivery wards at 28 obstetric centers in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan. In those settings all types of FGM were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby: 15 percent higher for Type I, 32 percent for Type II, and 55 percent for Type III.



"Same problems".... Christ.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Last time I checked, it didn't take a circumcised male 20 minutes to take a piss and sex wasn't reduced to nothing but pain.
> 
> LMAO, "same problems"


Depends on the type performed, and the way it is performed. I don't think you know much about it. In most cases, it does not stop sexual pleasure entirely. But really you should refrain from rejecting this argument as it is clear that your knowledge of the issue is very limited, and that you have done nothing to improve it.

Edit: you selectively quote a wikipedia article which essentially proves you wrong.


AfterGlow said:


> Check back with me when there is a surefire and objective way of measuring the amount of pleasure somebody feels when having sex and putting this on a pleasure scale. Once we can do that, we can start measuring pleasure of people to find out how pleasurable sex is to circumcised and uncircumcised men.


Asking someone before and after circumcision is a fairly surefire way. Indirect indicators such as the innervation of the area removed are pretty good as well.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Except my gf wouldn't have had her clitoris, as well as her inner and outer labia removed.
> 
> Also, only a moron who is too ignorant to open his mouth on the subject would compare female mutilation with male circumcision, especially from a medical point of view.
> 
> ...


Your cited complications wouldn't be if it was done in a clean professional hospital. The complications would be on the scale of male circumcision.



> Oh no, no no no no, no you do not try to pull that fucking strawman BS on me you little shit.


You're the one pulling strawmans. No one is saying what you are claiming people are saying.



> You said, and I quote; "Because in the US we think it's okay to circumcise males even though *they suffer the same problems that females would* if they were circumcised."
> 
> This proves how fucking little you know about the subject.
> You can't even compare the hell which female genital mutilation is to male circumcision. Educate your fucking ass.



Female genital mutilation is in the same boat as Male genital mutilation. Just one is done in a clean hospital and the other is done in a dirty fucking desert. Just for the record, more males die from genital mutilation in those regions than females do. 



> "Same problems".... Christ.


Talk about being blind-sided.
Common complications of male circumcision (done in clean hospitals):
1. Erectile Dysfunction
2. Reduced sensitivity
3. Increased pain during sexual intercourse.
4. Infection
5. Skin deformations
6. Abrasions of the glans
7. Cracks in the glans caused by dryness.
8. Death
9. Penile Amputation
10. Damage to the UT

Common complications of female circumcision (done in clean hospitals);
1. Reduced sensitivity
2. Infection
3. Death
4. Damage to the UT

Both the foreskin and clitoris make up the HUGE majority of sexual pleasure sensing in their respective systems. The clitoris is loaded with nerves, many of which are erogenous nerves that sense sexual pleasure. The foreskin is loaded with nerves, almost all of which are erogenous nerves as well.
The clitoris' purpose is sexual pleasure, the foreskin's purpose is not only pleasure, but protection as well.


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Asking someone before and after circumcision is a fairly surefire way. Indirect indicators such as the innervation of the area removed are pretty good as well.



No, that would just give an indication of what HE feels, which would be impossible to compare to what someone else feels.

It wouldn't be impossible that a circumcised male felt greater pleasure from sex than an uncircumcised male did before he was circumcised. There is however no way of comparing sexual enjoyment between two different people.

Sexual pleasure is more than just nerve endings in the skin.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 7, 2012)

I've reported AfterGlow for his regular use of insults and dishonest argumentation that's really just trolling



			
				AfterGlow said:
			
		

> No, that would just give an indication of what HE feels, which would be impossible to compare to what someone else feels.


Asking a sample of the population means that the results can be extrapolated. It was done, and the conclusion is that sensitivity is lost. This was in a previous post, which I guess you have failed to read even though you quoted it.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Except removing the foreskin wont deprive you from sexual pleasure. Try again.



Neither will removal of the clitoris. Plenty of women who've had theirs removed report having orgasms.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Sexual pleasure is more than just nerve endings in the skin.



You're correct, and the penis with the foreskin was purpose built for sex to feel as good as possible and as painless as possible. The foreskin also acts like a sleeve that can move back and forth to prevent friction during intercourse. To stimulate the nerves of the glans, circumcised males rely on friction. The nerves in the glans and foreskin of normal males rely on touch to be stimulated. Also, the foreskin secretes a small amount of thin mucus, like saliva, that acts as a lubricant to further prevent friction and pain.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> My preferences might be trivial to you, but whoops, this is how I work.


It's not just trivial but that's been well explained.


> Other aspects of that region and how they compare to the rest of the world are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It shouldn't be odd that I prefer cut guys over uncut guys due to the fact the I come from a region where cut guys make up more than 80%.


No, it is relevant when it's still a result of multiple factors that affect the percentage. It's an odd preference when you're trying to argue it's natural but still have a conscious preference in mind as if somehow it will be an issue as far as potentially having a run in with someone who isn't cut. It's still a weak argument where whether or not where you come from considers it normal is basically as meaningless as suggesting it shouldn't be considered odd to have a backward point of view on race.


> Judge all you want, I just fail to see the oddity in the matter since you already know the influence.


A dying, minority point of view that's sourced in superstition. How can anyone consider that odd? Oh yeah, most of the world.


> I don't like foreskin because it's a major turnoff not because I think it's unnatural so your attempt at demonizing my preferences is pretty cheap.


And once again, you're arguing as if this turnoff is just a natural inclination rather than an unnatural result of the region that influences the nurture that shapes your thinking. It still makes about as much sense as the guy from Mississippi claiming that I demonize his point of view.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 7, 2012)

Why are people so mad at Eli for not being sexually attracted to dudes with foreskin?


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Why are people so mad at Eli for not being sexually attracted to dudes with foreskin?



Because a critique can only be made out of anger. Yeah. Brilliant as always Oil Can.


----------



## Oil Can (Jul 7, 2012)




----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)




----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)




----------



## Syed (Jul 7, 2012)

Oil Can said:


> Why are people so mad at Eli for not being sexually attracted to dudes with foreskin?



Maybe they're pissed a female won't go for their foreskin covered dicks.


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

> I accept your declaration of defeat my good albeit horribly prejudiced lady.



Being turned off by foreskin = prejudice.
K.



neodragzero said:


> It's not just trivial but that's been well explained.
> 
> No, it is relevant when it's still a result of multiple factors that affect the percentage. It's an odd preference when you're trying to argue it's natural but still have a conscious preference in mind as if somehow it will be an issue as far as potentially having a run in with someone who isn't cut. It's still a weak argument where whether or not where you come from considers it normal is basically as meaningless as suggesting it shouldn't be considered odd to have a backward point of view on race.


Sexual preferences and racism are two different issues. 



> A dying, minority point of view that's sourced in superstition. How can anyone consider that odd? Oh yeah, most of the world.



You find it odd that I dislike foreskin because long ago the practice originated from superstitions? Ok. 

I mentioned one of the *influences* to my turnoff, the uncommonness and infrequency of uncircumcised males in the region I come from, plus the unlikelihood that I might engage in a relationship with an uncut guy due to the overwhelming percentage of circumcised  males in the region. Giving these facts, it shouldn't seem weird anymore why I don't like foreskin. However, if you still wanna continue to find my sexual preference strange, go on ahead.




> And once again, you're arguing as if this turnoff is just a natural inclination rather than an unnatural result of the region that influences the nurture that shapes your thinking. It still makes about as much sense as the guy from Mississippi claiming that I demonize his point of view.


It's a factor that might have had a hand in influencing my sexual preferences. Should i eliminate that factor of influence, there is still nothing unnatural of me being turned off by foreskin . 

Comparing racism with sexual preferences is cheap and a quick way to demonize an opinion. It's a turnoff that I doubt will just flip a switch and fade away 

What critique?


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)

Eli said:


> Sexual preferences and racism are two different issues.


There's sexual preference and there's a minority preference that's isn't natural to begin with.

Unnaturally instituted biased viewpoints that clearly die off without ongoing encouragement are not really defensible in this case.


> You find it odd that I dislike foreskin because long ago the practice originated from superstitions? Ok.


No, people can find it odd to have a preference that's overwhelmingly unnatural and only exist from relatively explicit influence. Statistical, unnatural minorities in behavior can be considered odd.


> I mentioned one of the *influences* to my turnoff, the uncommonness and infrequency of uncircumcised males in the region I come from, plus the unlikelihood that I might engage in a relationship with an uncut guy due to the overwhelming percentage of circumcised  males in the region. Giving these facts, it shouldn't seem weird anymore why I don't like foreskin. However, if you still wanna continue to find my sexual preference strange, go on ahead.


Read above. It can be considered odd. Rightfully so.


> It's a factor that might have had a hand in influencing my sexual preferences. Should i eliminate that factor of influence, there is still nothing unnatural of me being turned off by foreskin .



There's might and there's the highly likely as statistics have shown for the global and regional scale. Without the influence, it shouldn't be a concern in the first place. The fact you're concerned about it even though you're somewhere that has it as the majority still makes it clear it matters enough to be a special bias worthy of conscious thought to give a stigma to the region's minority. It's obviously unnatural when it's well enough proven it's the result of a nurture of the mind about something most of the world rightfully considers a normal bit of anatomy.


> Comparing racism with sexual preferences is cheap and a quick way to demonize an opinion. It's a turnoff that I doubt will just flip a switch and fade away
> 
> What critique?



Once again, they are reinforced biases that aren't defensible just because where you're from encourages it. Your preference is ingrained. So is a preference to have romance with a certain race. They aren't expected to just be "flip a switch and fade away." That was never a stated expectation on my part of any instantaneous change. The fact is that such biases die off as time moves on, gradually if that's not obvious enough for you to not be confused, as the influence of baseless traditional thinking dwindles in the face of medical, economic, and liberal thought progression.


----------



## WT (Jul 7, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> You're correct, and the penis with the foreskin was purpose built for sex to feel as good as possible and as painless as possible. The foreskin also acts like a sleeve that can move back and forth to prevent friction during intercourse. To stimulate the nerves of the glans, circumcised males rely on friction. The nerves in the glans and foreskin of normal males rely on touch to be stimulated. Also, the foreskin secretes a small amount of thin mucus, like saliva, that acts as a lubricant to further prevent friction and pain.



If you care that much about the reproductive organs, I'm sure you'd be against anal sex as that's obviously hazardous to the human being?


----------



## AfterGlow (Jul 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, people can find it odd to have a preference that's overwhelmingly unnatural and only exist from relatively explicit influence.



Just like how it's odd to like women with shaved legs or pierced ears, since it's overwhelmingly unnatural


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> There's sexual preference and there's a minority preference that's isn't natural to begin with.
> 
> Unnaturally instituted biased viewpoints that clearly die off without ongoing encouragement are not really defensible in this case.
> 
> ...


You are welcome to find it odd. Illogically.



> There's might and there's the highly likely as statistics have shown for the global and regional scale. Without the influence, it shouldn't be a concern in the first place. The fact you're concerned about it even though you're somewhere that has it as the majority still makes it clear it matters enough to be a special bias worthy of conscious thought to give a stigma to the region's minority. It's obviously unnatural when it's well enough proven it's the result of a nurture of the mind about something most of the world rightfully considers a normal bit of anatomy.


It's not like this bias a discrimination worthy of attention, it's a sexual preference. Most of the world don't get to decide what I find attractive or what turns me off.



> Once again, they are reinforced biases that aren't defensible just because where you're from encourages it. Your preference is ingrained. So is a preference to have romance with a certain race. They aren't expected to just be "flip a switch and fade away." That was never a stated expectation on my part of any instantaneous change. The fact is that such biases die off as time moves on, gradually if that's not obvious enough for you to not be confused, as the influence of baseless traditional thinking dwindles in the face of medical, economic, and liberal thought progression.


No, you said something about a white American finding the notion of dating someone outside their own race _unnatural_ which automatically implies racism that youve been trying to make equivalent to a particular sexual preference of mine which is not the case. 

I'm quite happy with my little bias thank you very much and I do not find men with foreskin unnatural, I just find them incredibly off turning just as you might find a fat girl off turning.  

I could not careless about traditional thinking, medical, economic, and liberal thought progression as I did not come here to prove circumcision to be morally right or wrong. And specifically in my region, it will not die off by the time I have zero sex drive.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, people can find it odd to have a preference that's overwhelmingly unnatural and only exist from relatively explicit influence. Statistical, unnatural minorities in behavior can be considered odd.


By that logic wouldn't Homosexuality be odd as well ?


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 7, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> By that logic wouldn't Homosexuality be odd as well ?



No, because homosexuality is natural and exists without influence. And technically, the rate of homosexuality is much greater than the rate of another "non-minority" such as green eyes.

/Derailing the topic


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2012)

All of you people getting on someone for not liking foreskin and giving them hell over it, go date the fattest person, and disregard how they look. Go straight for their personality.

...

oh wait. I'm pretty sure that we all nit pick who we want to date, and that our preferences decide for us. 

@Saufsoldat, I'll look for the thread later on. It wasn't said recently, but it is what I associate your username with.


----------



## perman07 (Jul 7, 2012)

Flow said:


> All of you people getting on someone for not liking foreskin and giving them hell over it, go date the fattest person, and disregard how they look. Go straight for their personality.


I don't think people are that rude to her, we have stated our opinions on the fact that she exclusively dates surgically altered men.

It just so happens that a lot of people find that weird, most people don't find it weird to not date fat people. Your comparison is a bad one.


----------



## Samehada (Jul 7, 2012)

Island said:


> Wait, what? I thought all males got circumcised. I know I am. :/



Its a parents choice at birth. Some do i for religion purposes, others for cultural purposes. 

Ultimately, I do not see much of a problem...I don't get how being circumcised means the end of the world for the man. Sure there is the "good and bad" sides of it, but hell, those are pretty insignificant compared to other side effects in the world.


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2012)

No, what I'm saying is you should look past their looks, and quit being biased/prejudice.

Open yourself to all individuals. Practice what you preach. Other wise, you all are a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 7, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> By that logic wouldn't Homosexuality be odd as well ?



Xeno, read again:



neodragzero said:


> No, people can find it odd to have a preference that's overwhelmingly unnatural and *only exist from relatively explicit influence*. Statistical, unnatural minorities in behavior can be considered odd.



In this world we call reality, I'm pretty sure that there's no case of indoctrinating people to be gay. There is the case of teaching certain gender roles and reinforced support for heterosexual couples that would be the unnatural and explicit influence upon a person's development.


AfterGlow said:


> Just like how it's odd to like women with shaved legs or pierced ears, since it's overwhelmingly unnatural


Because babies have their legs shaved or their ears pierced at birth with both utterly being permanent...if we pretend that hair doesn't grow back and that piercings seal back up if nothing plugs up the hole. Yeah, great comparison you have there.



Eli said:


> You are welcome to find it odd. Illogically.


No, my argument remains logical. What would be irrational on the other hand if I had some conscious bias to not prefer women on the basis of whether or not they are circumcised even though I live in a country where that should not be an issue most of the time.


> *It's not like this bias a discrimination worthy of attention*, it's a sexual preference. Most of the world don't get to decide what I find attractive or what turns me off.


And once again, it's obviously worth of attention when said bias in your region is somehow worthy of conscious existence even though cut men are of high enough statistical occurrence that shouldn't make this a concern in the first place. You're confusing my argument of majority to mean acceptable when that's actually your argument to defend your bias. I'm not suggesting it's simply a matter of a majority point of view but also the show of how a bias isn't naturally conceived without an influence that is still baseless in logic.


> No, you said something about a white American finding the notion of dating someone outside their own race _unnatural_ which automatically implies racism that youve been trying to make equivalent to a particular sexual preference of mine which is not the case.


They are equivalent biases as such that only exist through unnatural influence that makes something most people are relatively indifferent to a conscious issue with a stigma is attached to it one way or the other. 


> I'm quite happy with my little bias thank you very much and I do not find men with foreskin unnatural, I just find them incredibly off turning just as you might find a fat girl off turning.



And once again with the false equivalence where cosmetic surgery done upon a person during infancy doesn't equate to a complicated matter that is more influenced by personal choice among other factors that aren't simply based on baseless traditional thinking. Especially when it's easier to define what a circumcised penis is than it is to define exactly what each person in their head considers fat.


> I could not careless about traditional thinking, medical, economic, and liberal thought progression as I did not come here to prove circumcision to be morally right or wrong.


Whether or not you care about societal progression and whether or not you're attempting to prove something moral in this case don't go together for your whiny outburst. Your indifference is meaningless to the issue when I'm not arguing that you care about the former nor am I arguing you're attempting to do the latter. You attempted to argue as if there's a problem that someone considers your bias to be odd. You have no real argument to speak of when your only response is "this is the way it is where I'm from" and "I don't care about statistics and likelihoods except when I superficially use them incorrectly."


> And specifically in my region, it will not die off by the time I have zero sex drive.



It's a good thing I didn't suggest otherwise.


----------



## Spock (Jul 7, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> No, my argument remains logical. What would be irrational on the other hand if I had some conscious bias to not prefer women on the basis of whether or not they are circumcised even though I live in a country where that should not be an issue most of the time.


Your argument only stands should I have an irrational hate for uncircumcised guys without any reasonings or influences. You seem to hate the practice because it used to be based on superstitions and fairy tales which is not why I prefer cut guys. I prefer them because uncut dicks are a major turnoffs.




> And once again, it's obviously worth of attention when said bias in your region is somehow worthy of conscious existence even though it's of high enough statistical occurrence that shouldn't make this a concern in the first place. You're confusing my argument of majority to mean good when that's actually your argument to defend your bias. I'm not suggesting it's simply a matter of a majority point of view but also the show of how a bias isn't naturally conceived without an influence that is still baseless in logic.


Arab girls who don't go with uncircumcised Arab guys are discriminating against them. Right, It's such a horrible discrimination which demands serious attention. 



> They are equivalent biases as such that only exist through unnatural influence  of making something most people are relatively indifferent to a conscious issue when a stigma is attached to something one way or the other.


It is an unfair comparison simply because you used the term "unnatural" to the notion of dating outside of their respective race. 

Some people are only attracted to a certain race, they can't help it and they get along fine with everyone  else but when it comes to sex, they have a specific race in mind, are you gonna demonize them as well with your lovely liberal progressive thinking? I don't choose what I'm attracted to.




> And once again with the false equivalence where cosmetic surgery done upon a person during infancy doesn't equate to a complicated matter that is more influenced by personal choice among other factors that aren't simply based on baseless traditional thinking. Especially when it's easier to define what a circumcised penis is than it is to define exactly what each person in their head considers fat.


How it came to be is irrelevant, I'm not here to discuss the morality of circumcision and it's history of traditional factors. I'm here to state that I find cut guys more attractive and I referred to a factor which might have influenced such preference. 

The same argument of babies choice can also be attached to fatness. After all babies don't choose what to be fed or what to be brought on the dinner table, it's entirely the parents fault until said child realizes a proper diet and by that time they would already be fat so it's not "personal choice among other factors that aren't simply based on baseless traditional thinking" . You are not attracted to fat people who had no choice but to eat what their parents provided of unhealthy food. I find that extremely odd and bewildering. 



> Whether or not you care about societal progression and whether or not you're attempting to prove something moral in this case don't go together for your whiny outburst. You attempted to argue as if there's a problem that someone considers your bias to be odd. You have no real argument to speak of when your only response is "this is the way it is where I'm from" and "I don't care about statistics and likelihoods except when I superficially use them incorrectly."
> 
> 
> It's a good thing I didn't suggest otherwise.


No problem at all, consider all you want, I suggested factors which might have had a hand in shaping my sexual preferences.

It's basically like this :you don't like uncut guys because you originate from a place where more than 80% of guys are cut ? How odd. 

Giving these facts, it shouldn't be considered odd anymore to why I prefer cut guys more.

You seem to have personal vendetta against the practice itself and that's not my problem.


----------



## hammer (Jul 8, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr0tAKsdBMk&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 8, 2012)

Eli said:


> Your argument only stands should I have an irrational hate for uncircumcised guys without any reasonings or influences. You seem to hate the practice because it used to be based on superstitions and fairy tales which is not why I prefer cut guys. I prefer them because uncut dicks are a major turnoffs.


And once again, you're missing what I'm getting at. It's irrational when you claim that you have a particular bias, as you treat a certain thing with disgust, that shouldn't be considered odd even though you live in a region you claim has a percentage that makes it a non-issue and the matter of statistics on the issue throughout the world. Lay off the attempts to inject emotive reasoning into my argument.


> Arab girls who don't go with uncircumcised Arab guys are discriminating against them. Right, It's such a horrible discrimination which demands serious attention.


It's a pointless, among other forms of discrimination that had to be taught or it wouldn't be an issue otherwise, viewpoint. It can be considered another symptom that shows there's an issue in development for a particular region.


> It is an unfair comparison simply because you used the term "unnatural" to the notion of dating outside of their respective race.


It's fair. It's unnatural when such a conscious bias doesn't naturally occur on its own. It's a result of nurture, not nature. Simple.


> Some people are only attracted to a certain race, they can't help it and they get along fine with everyone  else but when it comes to sex, they have a specific race in mind, are you gonna demonize them as well with your lovely liberal progressive thinking? I don't choose what I'm attracted to.


Read above. The result of influence that attaches a stigma to something that otherwise people don't care about as an issue when it's not made an issue in the first place.

Of course it's not really a conscious choice on your part. That's the result of nurture you're not as likely to be conscious of occurring throughout adolescent to adulthood. It's not some easy choice for a lot of forms of discrimination; they're ingrained gradually.


> How it came to be is irrelevant, I'm not here to discuss themorality of circumcision and it's history of traditional factors. I'm here to state that I find cut guys more attractive and I referred to a factor which might have influenced such preference.


Neither am I all that interested. The fact of the matter is that it's reasonable and rational to consider your viewpoint odd as far as its irrational basis and clear show that it dies out with an explicit source of influence. Referring to the region factor has about as much use of being defensible as the example I already gave.


> The same argument of babies choice can also be attached to fatness. After all babies don't choose what to be fed or what to be brought on the dinner table, it's entirely the parents fault until said child realizes a proper diet and by that time they would already be fat so it's not "personal choice among other factors that aren't simply based on baseless traditional thinking" . You are not attracted to fat people who had no choice but to eat what their parents provided of unhealthy food. I find that extremely odd and bewildering.


That's still a horrible comparison. It's nothing more than a false equivalence fallacy. How fat someone is as a baby doesn't remain near the level of simple permanence of circumcision. There's no dieting nor trips to the gym to grow back removed foreskin or a clitoris. All the more so when the concept of being fat is still once again not a specific definition nor even a medical one like say the world obesity. It comes to show you don't understand the concepts very well.


> It's basically like this :you don't like uncut guys because you originate from a place where more than 80% of guys are cut ? How odd.


Yeah, it is odd when it's a conscious issue in the first place while you claim it's unlikely to be an issue in the first place. Standards can only be judged on where someone is from rather than remembering statistics and such that prove it to be an artificially produced standard.  Glad you can see the problem.


> Giving these facts, it shouldn't be considered odd anymore to why I prefer cut guys more.


Read above. It still can be considered odd.


> You seem to have personal vendetta against the practice itself and that's not my problem.



That would require me to suggest I simply dislike rather than the fact of how it's proven to be medically unnecessary and only reinforced as a concept from usually religious traditionalism. If something doesn't work, pointless to have been done, and violates a person's ability to choose how their body will be till the day they die, it's not really defensible.


----------



## Spock (Jul 8, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> And once again, you're missing what I'm getting at. It's irrational when you claim that you have a particular bias, as you treat a certain thing with disgust, that shouldn't be considered odd even though you live in a region you claim has a percentage that makes it a non-issue and the matter of statistics on the issue throughout the world. Lay off the attempts to inject emotive reasoning into my argument.
> 
> It's a pointless, among other forms of discrimination that had to be taught or it wouldn't be an issue otherwise, viewpoint.
> 
> ...



How is it a discrimination?  I said I hate foreskin and my culture of origin might have had a hand in shaping that preference due to that fact that most males over there are circumcised and the fact that 20% exist mean that there are good amount of Arab girls who like to fuck uncircumcised guys. I don't understand where you are bringing stigams and discriminations against dicks from. It's certainly preferred to circumcise your son over there but even if you don't, he is not gonna be rejected in the virgin corner for the rest of his life.  

There is a difference in the races of people and the dicks of people, when I pointed out the unfairness of the word unnatural I was referring to the point when you used it in the voice of the white American "who would find it unnatural to date a non white person" .  I was not arguing against the nurture and nature part, on the contrary I said many times that this particular preference of mine is due to the influence of my region


Remain bewildered,btw. 



> That's still a horrible comparison. It's nothing more than a false equivalence fallacy. How fat someone is as a baby doesn't remain near the level of simple permanence of circumcision. There's no dieting nor trips to the gym to grow back removed foreskin or a clitoris. All the more so when the concept of being fat is still once again not a specific definition nor even a medical one like say the world obesity. It comes to show you don't understand the concepts very well.


While yes circumcision is irreversible it's not really a horrible comparison due to lack of patience. You see, kids until they reach a certain age have no say in what goes on in their diet, it's all up to their parents to choose just like circumcision. Are you gonna say that you'll consider dating a person who had the wrong diet for their entire life and would have to spend *ages* in new dieting and trips to the gym in order to gain a good shape, because you know that doesnt happen in a matter of few weeks. Would you wait even before getting to know them deeply? Of course not, _you would have a hard time telling me that you would_ and someone else will date that person once all the hardship of dieting and exercising pays off.  



> It can be considered another symptom that shows there's an issue in development for a particular region.


you wanna go about how the middle east is such a shithole underdeveloped region we could do it somewhere else.


----------



## Austin (Jul 8, 2012)

I feel bad for girls in germany..


----------



## kidgogeta (Jul 8, 2012)

The actual pleasure you get from something sexual has many factors and physical sensation is only a part of it. I didn't read the thread but this topic has a common trend of the uncut bros telling the cut bros there's no way they can ever feel as good despite cut guys still being capable of the same kind of head spinning orgasms .With the existence of water based lube there is virtually no sexual advantage in the pleasure department imo. 

It's physical sensitivity vs aesthetics and possibly hygienic benefits.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 8, 2012)

kidgogeta said:


> The actual pleasure you get from something sexual has many factors and physical sensation is only a part of it. I didn't read the thread but this topic has a common trend of the uncut bros telling the cut bros there's no way they can ever feel as good despite cut guys still being capable of the same kind of head spinning orgasms .With the existence of water based lube there is virtually no sexual advantage in the pleasure department imo.
> 
> It's physical sensitivity vs aesthetics and possibly hygienic benefits.



I think you should have read the thread. Namely the first 10 pages before trolls got on.


----------



## EJ (Jul 8, 2012)

^ Nope, still the same uncut users telling other users of how they are missing out.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 8, 2012)

^
See what I mean?


----------



## EJ (Jul 8, 2012)

And yet you continue to call others trolls.

When you have yet to post the video of alleged people you have "interviewed" regarding this subject.

Which is why I called your claims BS. I have never seen some rise or some huge discussion  (between people irl) regarding this topic. In fact, one of the main people I use to talk to back then told me he had his foreskin. And more than half of the people in our group didn't know what it was. When he explained, someone said "eww, you have to flip the skin back?"

Only uncut insecure losers spend so much time arguing/debating that uncut people are mutated freaks and are losing out on sex. 

Not calling anyone out with that last statement, since many of you say that you aren't insecure.


----------



## kidgogeta (Jul 8, 2012)

I have an an idea I think. Your argument is about the medical validity of it, which I and many other males aren't interested in. All we care about is 1. Can we feel good? 2. Does my penis look good?


----------



## EJ (Jul 8, 2012)

And I've seen pictures of it.

When ever I get questionable "What if I had it", I get thankful that my parents did have the doctor cut that ugly piece of skin off.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 8, 2012)




----------



## Mintaka (Jul 8, 2012)

Flow said:


> And yet you continue to call others trolls.
> 
> When you have yet to post the video of alleged people you have "interviewed" regarding this subject.
> 
> ...


I myself am cut and I find it as barbaric and unnecessary as they do.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 8, 2012)

Eli said:


> How is it a discrimination?


I'm gonna ignore the rest of the paragraph since you don't seem to know what discrimination means. Discrimination doesn't refer only to race.


> There is a difference in the races of people and the dicks of people, when I pointed out the unfairness of the word unnatural I was referring to the point when you used it in the voice of the white American "who would find it unnatural to date a non white person" .


Both are discrimination. Both are reinforced through unnatural means during nurture where without that reinforced influence it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.


> While yes circumcision is irreversible it's not really a horrible comparison due to lack of patience.


Direct cosmetic injury upon a newborn vs years of influence that the parent can't alone have upon the child's eating habits that develop throughout years when they actually have the ability to choose things. One is reversible while the other can't be fixed by something as easily done, required, and quite common as good exercise and proper diet. A person's weight is gonna be a lot more obvious than something that requires someone's pants off. No comparison whatsoever. You're still using a gross fallacy.


> you wanna go about how the middle east is such a shithole underdeveloped region we could do it somewhere else.



And now we have a strawman fallacy. There's an issue of development for a particular region. It's a fact. An unfortunate fact that includes numerous factors throughout history rather than any suggestion it's just an issue caused simply because it happens to be the middle east. I don't have time for lazy, superficial outrage that puts words into my mouth.


kidgogeta said:


> I have an an idea I think. Your argument is about the medical validity of it, which I and many other males aren't interested in. All we care about is 1. Can we feel good? 2. Does my penis look good?



1. From the looks of research, the cut means less of the feel good for both parties doing it between the sheets. The guy supposedly feels less sensation, as far losing numerous nerve endings go, while the chick is more likely to be left uncomfortably dry.
2. Doesn't matter.


----------



## EJ (Jul 8, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> I myself am cut and I find it as barbaric and unnecessary as they do.



You are not human, so you have no say in the matter. 

/jk


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Both are discrimination. Both are reinforced through unnatural means during nurture where without that reinforced influence it wouldn't be an issue in the first place.


What about discrimination based on personality ? that's as unnatural and nurture based as it can be .


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 9, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> What about discrimination based on personality ? that's as unnatural and nurture based as it can be .



Except that personality isn't formed when you're a newborn. Everyone has a personality that usually develops after their 3rd year. The matter of personality and the matter of cosmetic surgery on an infant are nowhere near comparable. Your comparison makes about as much sense as comparing water to a bacon sundae. People naturally have to develop a personality. It's a given result of evolution where the human brain learns and grow. The same can't be said for cosmetic surgery against a person's will.


----------



## kidgogeta (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> 1. From the looks of research, the cut means less of the feel good for both parties doing it between the sheets. The guy supposedly feels less sensation, as far losing numerous nerve endings go, while the chick is more likely to be left uncomfortably dry.
> 2. Doesn't matter.



1. Please go ahead and quantify how much "feel good" we're losing otherwise we're to assume its negligible considering cut men can have an intense climax already.Do my eyes roll to the back of my head or what? Fill me in on what I'm missing out on.  About the dryness point that's where water based lube comes into play. They've got stuff now that completely replicates the consistency of sexual fluid and smell of pheromones. 

2. Doesn't matter to you. The majority of males care about their aesthetics and the penis is no exception. To you it isn't a valid reason for getting cut but I assure you many parents took this into consideration when making the decision.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Except that personality isn't formed when you're a newborn. Everyone has a personality that usually develops after their 3rd year. The matter of personality and the matter of cosmetic surgery on an infant are nowhere near comparable. Your comparison makes about as much sense as comparing water to a bacon sundae. People naturally have to develop a personality. It's a given result of evolution where the human brain learns and grow. The same can't be said for cosmetic surgery against a person's will.


But personalty is influenced by the place of birth and cultural background of the individual which is against the person's will as well,


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 9, 2012)

kidgogeta said:


> 1. Please go ahead and quantify how much "feel good" we're losing otherwise we're to assume its negligible considering cut men can have an intense climax already.


Physical sensation and loss of ability to properly reach climax by a factor of over 10% supposedly. It's not a big surprise when you're removing a sizable amount of nerve endings. Dissatisfaction quite simply is increased for both parties.


> About the dryness point that's where water based lube comes into play. They've got stuff now that completely replicates the consistency of sexual fluid and smell of pheromones.


No. It's not good enough to discount scientific research on the subject where the answer of "just use lube" isn't enough to cover statistical occurrence in reality. It makes about as much sense as the "abstinence" argument as far as proclaiming an idea but whether or not it occurs in reality is the problem.


> 2. Doesn't matter to you. The majority of males care about their aesthetics and the penis is no exception. To you it isn't a valid reason for getting cut but I assure you many parents took this into consideration when making the decision.


No, it doesn't matter. In the sense it varies too much of a specific issue where the difference in how one penis looks in comparison to another is more complicated and varied beyond a lazy cut or uncut. The aesthetic you speak of is artificial as it has to be taught to be a problem in the first place and no longer is considered a problem when it isn't forced upon the populace as baseless traditional thinking declines.

Also, you're pretty much arguing that it makes sense to have someone go through medically pointless cosmetic surgery against their will so that they have to use something they naturally were built to have. So, no cosmetic surgery, it's fine. With cosmetic surgery, you will always need something extra. That doesn't sound like a reasonable explanation for forcing something on someone against their will.


xenopyre said:


> But personalty is influenced by the place of birth and cultural background of the individual which is against the person's will as well,



Except that there's no statistics to make personality comparable to something utterly specific like circumcision. Personality is a general universal that can vary. Circumcision is not. You're confusing a general matter that has worlds more factors than circumcision. It's still confusing the universal necessity of water to the perceived necessity of a bacon sundae. Your argument justifies all forms of discrimination and makes them all equal without any reasonable nor rational thought about scale.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Except that there's no statistics to make personality comparable to something utterly specific like circumcision. Personality is a general universal that can vary. Circumcision is not. You're confusing a general matter that has worlds more factors than circumcision. It's still confusing the universal necessity of water to the perceived necessity of a bacon sundae. Your argument justifies all forms of discrimination and makes them all equal without any reasonable nor rational thought about scale.


It doesn't matter what are the factors behind the phenomenon, the important thing is that it's there and people base their preferences accordingly, and ofcourse all non-harmful discriminations are the same, people aren't supposed to like everything they're presented with .


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 9, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> It doesn't matter what are the factors behind the phenomenon,


It actually does. Otherwise, we would generalize everything. Tell that ridiculous statement to lawyers and researchers to see what response they'll give to that lazy bit of baseless statement.


> the important thing is that it's there and people base their preferences accordingly, and ofcourse all non-harmful discriminations are the same, people aren't supposed to like everything they're presented with .


Non-harmful how? You're still confusing a generality with a specific. It's the same lazy fallacy that justifies all forms of discrimination. It's not a viable rhetoric. No court will accept that.


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Jul 9, 2012)

When go through this thread I think of the movie line "Life is like a box of chocolates.".  Same is with people and what parents think is best for their children.  You just never know what you are going to get.  Just as long as the child goes up healthy and happy is all that matters.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> It actually does. Otherwise, we would generalize everything. Tell that ridiculous statement to lawyers and researchers to see what response they'll give to that lazy bit of baseless statement.


I don't know any lawyers would you reference me to some ? how does the complexity of the phenomenon have anything to do with its legal perception ?does me stealing something because I couldn't find anything to eat, legally different from me stealing something because it looked shiny ?  


> Non-harmful how? You're still confusing a generality with a specific. It's the same lazy fallacy that justifies all forms of discrimination. It's not a viable rhetoric. No court will accept that.


non harmful as in doesn't harm the people who are discriminated against(unlike racism or antisemitism or islamophobia or any form of discrimination that infringe on the basic human rights of the individual) , how does me preferring redheads for example harm the non-redheads ? the same goes for women who prefer  muscular men and others who don't , and the same with cut and non-cut men , and yes all forms of non harmful discrimination should be justified .


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 9, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> I don't know any lawyers would you reference me to some ? how does the complexity of the phenomenon have anything to do with its legal perception ?does me stealing something because I couldn't find anything to eat, legally different from me stealing something because it looked shiny ?



Let me guess, you never read the OP or you wouldn't be asking about the legal perception. If you can't see the difference between having a newborn go through pointless cosmetic surgery and the concept of personality that's nowhere near the simplicity of that, you don't have a real grasp of the discussion to really take part. Your hypothetical of theft isn't comparable at all to the subject covered in the article and discussion based off that article. You seem to be capable of only making false equivalence fallacies.


> non harmful as in doesn't harm the people who are discriminated against(unlike racism or antisemitism or islamophobia or any form of discrimination that infringe on the basic human rights of the individual) , how does me preferring redheads for example harm the non-redheads ?


Except that circumcision as dealt with under German law violates the right to physical integrity. Your preference for red heads isn't the result of conscious attempts to increase or decrease the existence of red heads. It's harmful when a society forcefully encourages a baseless preference against something that was natural to begin with and was never made an issue as long as no institution or group is forcing it upon others. Discriminating who exactly is covered by law to give special treatment to certain religious groups while at the same violating a right to physical integrity for a newborn that will forever change them for no medically viable reason is a lot more deeper than your quite individual interest in red heads or lack thereof.


> the same goes for women who prefer  muscular men and others who don't , and the same with cut and non-cut men , and yes all forms of non harmful discrimination should be justified .



Once again, newborns aren't given more muscles at birth nor any of the other false equivalence you're trying to make. I'm afraid you quite simply have nothing to really say about this topic when you don't seem to know much about it all along with the inability to even understand what discrimination is and what happens when an artificially created viewpoint that requires reinforcement to ever exist in the first place is still proven to be such through statistics and legal thinking.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli, are you only open to relationships with Arab guys?



kidgogeta said:


> The actual pleasure you get from something sexual has many factors and physical sensation is only a part of it. I didn't read the thread but this topic has a common trend of the uncut bros telling the cut bros there's no way they can ever feel as good despite cut guys still being capable of the same kind of head spinning orgasms .With the existence of water based lube there is virtually no sexual advantage in the pleasure department imo.
> 
> It's physical sensitivity vs aesthetics and possibly hygienic benefits.



Not quite. No one who's against circumcision said that cut men don't feel pleasure. They're saying cut men don't feel pleasure as easily as cut men. How much pleasure they feel is relative to the individual, but it's fact that sexual pleasure is greater in uncut men because most of the nerves associated with pleasure are located in the foreskin.


----------



## Spock (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Eli, are you only open to relationships with Arab guys?



Of course not, I don't limit myself to one ethnicity, giving the nature of my lifestyle that requires alot of relocating.

However I do limit myself to specific preferences and circumcision is not limited only to Arab guys.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli said:


> Of course not, I don't limit myself to one ethnicity, giving the nature of my lifestyle that requires alot of relocating.
> 
> However I do limit myself to specific preferences and circumcision is not limited only to Arab guys.



You realize then that sexual preferences based on your region alone won't apply to all other regions right? Countries in the west don't have the same ratio of cut to uncut guys as Saudi Arabia does. If you're gonna go out with a white guy, you should expect him to be uncut more often than you would an Arab guy, especially since you live in Poland. That's why your preference is discrimination and borderline racist.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having your preferences. What's wrong is the uncompromising attitude you have. I'm not saying you should stop finding uncut guys a turn-off either. I'm referring to the fact you'd outright dump them rather than give them the chance.


----------



## xenopyre (Jul 9, 2012)

neodragzero said:


> Let me guess, you never read the OP or you wouldn't be asking about the legal perception. If you can't see the difference between having a newborn go through pointless cosmetic surgery and the concept of personality that's nowhere near the simplicity of that, you don't have a real grasp of the discussion to really take part. Your hypothetical of theft isn't comparable at all to the subject covered in the article and discussion based off that article. You seem to be capable of only making false equivalence fallacies.
> 
> 
> Except that circumcision as dealt with under German law violates the right to physical integrity. Your preference for red heads isn't the result of conscious attempts to increase or decrease the existence of red heads. It's harmful when a society forcefully encourages a baseless preference against something that was natural to begin with and was never made an issue as long as no institution or group is forcing it upon others. Discriminating who exactly is covered by law to give special treatment to certain religious groups while at the same violating a right to physical integrity for a newborn that will forever change them for no medically viable reason is a lot more deeper than your quite individual interest in red heads or lack thereof.


I'm not talking about the OP, I could care less about German law since I'm not German, not to mention that it's like digging the ocean water, it won't stop people from circumcising their newborns , we're talking about you considering women preference of cut over uncut men as harmful discrimination .



> Once again, newborns aren't given more muscles at birth nor any of the other false equivalence you're trying to make. I'm afraid you quite simply have nothing to really say about this topic when you don't seem to know much about it all along with the inability to even understand what discrimination is and what happens when an artificially created viewpoint that requires reinforcement to ever exist in the first place is still proven to be such through statistics and legal thinking.


Actually it kind of is, sexual preferences and by extent the perception of beauty is influenced by the society and the fashion industry, hence the amount of cosmetic surgery's  in order to fit into the beauty paradigm of the society you've originated in and which you'd no saying in it.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> I'm not talking about the OP, I could care less about German law since I'm not German, not to mention that it's like digging the ocean water, it won't stop people from circumcising their newborns , we're talking about you considering women preference of cut over uncut men as harmful discrimination.



As far as I recall, he didn't say it's a harmful discrimination the way women only liking men who are into BDSM would be harmful discrimination, given that the practice of BDSM is a harmful one. I explained it's discrimination because it's a preference based entirely on where she came from but applies that preference on all other regions in the world. Hence the bias.



xenopyre said:


> Actually it kind of is, sexual preferences and by extent the perception of beauty is influenced by the society and the fashion industry, hence the amount of cosmetic surgery's  in order to fit into the beauty paradigm of the society you've originated in and which you'd no saying in it.



Of course. But is it right? Many women feel dissatisfied with how the media sexualizes women to the extent where many of them feel they have unrealistic expectations to fulfill.


----------



## Spock (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> You realize then that sexual preferences based on your region alone won't apply to all other regions right? Countries in the west don't have the same ratio of cut to uncut guys as Saudi Arabia does. If you're gonna go out with a white guy, you should expect him to be uncut more often than you would an Arab guy, especially since you live in Poland. That's why your preference is discrimination and borderline racist.
> 
> I'm not saying there's anything wrong with having your preferences. What's wrong is the uncompromising attitude you have.



All of that is realized but whoa, I think you are stretching it a bit too far by calling it discriminatory and racist. I don't reject someone because of their ethnicity but more because they fail to meet a certain standard. Again, due to my relocating lifestyle I happen to always choose schools and workplaces which are international. So there is really no worry about me going out with circumcised white guys. Or is choosing an international enviroment also discriminatory and racist ?


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli said:


> All of that is realized but whoa, I think you are stretching it a bit too far by calling it discriminatory and racist. I don't reject someone because of their ethnicity but more because they fail to meet a certain standard. Again, due to my relocating lifestyle I happen to always choose schools and workplaces which are international. So there is really no worry about me going out with circumcised white guys. Or is choosing an international enviroment also discriminatory and racist ?



I'm saying you shouldn't expect your regional preferences to reflect in an international environment. You have your preferences and bias. That's all well and good. It's not a stretch to call it discrimination when you wouldn't make any compromises with an uncut guy, even if you were to love him enough to consider spending the rest of your days with him. If you'd be willing to continue dating an uncut person on the condition that he cut himself and does so, then I wouldn't personally consider it discrimination as such anymore because you're still willing to go beyond your differences and expectations (like many women who're not pleased at men being unwilling to do so because they have their preferences and expectations based on the media's unrealistic representation of beauty and gender roles). 

Like I said, it's the uncompromising attitude of yours that's the problem with your preferences. Not the preferences themselves. It's just a piece of skin and removing it through a professional is very easy. It's nothing worth dumping a guy for.

Also, I called it "borderline" racist rather than just racist because they're preferences entirely based on where you come from, where the ratio of uncut guys to cut guys wouldn't be skewed in the latter's favor as much anywhere else.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> given that the practice of BDSM is a harmful one.



... 

wat?


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

actionjesus said:


> ...
> 
> wat?



Tell me how the practice of Sadomasochism doesn't have the chance to lead to some unwanted injuries. Playing with hot wax isn't safe no matter how you cut it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Tell me how the practice of Sadomasochism doesn't have the chance to lead to some unwanted injuries. Playing with hot wax isn't safe no matter how you cut it.



"Normal" sex also has a chance to lead to some unwanted injuries.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> "Normal" sex also has a chance to lead to some unwanted injuries.



Sure, but how do you compare it to sadomasochism which aims to deliberately injure another person for sexual pleasure? Perhaps I should have specified I'm talking about permanent injuries.


----------



## Spock (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm saying you shouldn't expect your regional preferences to reflect in an international environment. You have your preferences and bias. That's all well and good. It's not a stretch to call it discrimination when you wouldn't make any compromises with an uncut guy, even if you were to love him enough to consider spending the rest of your days with him. If you'd be willing to continue dating an uncut person on the condition that he cut himself and does so, then I wouldn't personally consider it discrimination as such anymore because you're still willing to go beyond your differences and expectations (like many women who're not pleased at men being unwilling to do so because they have their preferences and expectations based on the media's unrealistic representation of beauty and gender roles).
> 
> Like I said, it's the uncompromising attitude of yours that's the problem with your preferences. Not the preferences themselves. It's just a piece of skin and removing it through a professional is very easy. It's nothing worth dumping a guy for.
> 
> Also, I called it "borderline" racist rather than just racist because they're preferences entirely based on where you come from, where the ratio of uncut guys to cut guys wouldn't be skewed in the latter's favor as much anywhere else.



I don't just sleep around, Freedan, believe me it wouldn't get to the point where I am to love a guy enough to consider spending the rest of my days with him before knowing he was uncircumcised. 

I don't like to lie, especially in these type of matters and I wouldnt wanna play pretend or lie to someone I love enough to consider spending the rest of my days with. In my opinion, my "uncompromising attitude" is very honest and straightforward which will save a great amount of heartbreak and unnecessary shit before I actually fall in love and feel connected.

I think I made it clear that I will reject uncircumcised Arab guys as well so this whole "racist" against uncircumcised white guys is just silly.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli said:


> I don't just sleep around, Freedan, believe me it wouldn't get to the point where I am to love a guy enough to consider spending the rest of my days with him before knowing he was uncircumcised.



I'm still referring to the scenario I posed to you earlier. That kind of response doesn't count because I know you'd say that. It just boggles my mind how you'd so quickly let your relationship be defined by a piece of skin. I know you don't sleep around, I'm just giving you a hypothetical argument.



Eli said:


> I don't like to lie, especially in these type of matters and I wouldnt wanna play pretend or lie to someone I love enough to consider spending the rest of my days with. In my opinion, my "uncompromising attitude" is very honest and straightforward which will save a great amount of heartbreak and unnecessary shit before I actually fall in love and feel connected.



You make it sound as tho the first thing you'd ask a guy is if he's circumcised. What if you knew, and he still turned out to be everything you'd expect from a guy you'd want to be with? I'm dumbfounded at how a piece of skin would stop you from being with someone you genuinely like and enjoy being with.



Eli said:


> I think I made it clear that I will reject uncircumcised Arab guys as well so this whole "racist" against uncircumcised white guys is just silly.



I'm not saying it's racist at all. It's a preference based on racial layout and statistics, meaning ALMOST racist. You would be racist if you only liked Arab guys, but that's not what I'm saying.


----------



## actionjesus (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Tell me how the practice of Sadomasochism doesn't have the chance to lead to some unwanted injuries. Playing with hot wax isn't safe no matter how you cut it.



Not only can you do BDSM without the SM, but safety is a pretty big thing among practitioners. Hot wax isn't going to cause any injuries unless you drip it in someone's eyes or similar. Or I guess you can count setting the house on fire as a potential hazard too - make sure your sex dungeon is made of concrete.

All sex has chance for unwanted injuries. There's penile fracture, ripped anal sphincter, broken backs and all kinds of other injuries you can get. There's the situational ones like losing your foothold in the shower or accidentally tumbling into the nest of some pissed off animal. Not to mention the ever-present threat of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. BDSM by serious practitioners isn't any more dangerous than vanilla sex.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

^ Fair enough. I stand corrected in that case.


----------



## Spock (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I'm still referring to the scenario I posed to you earlier. That kind of response doesn't count because I know you'd say that. It just boggles my mind how you'd so quickly let your relationship be defined by a piece of skin. I know you don't sleep around, I'm just giving you a hypothetical argument.



I didn't remember it, it was few pages back. In a realistic argument however, I think it should count. Please stop trivializing how I define my relationships.



> You make it sound as tho the first thing you'd ask a guy is if he's circumcised. What if you knew, and he still turned out to be everything you'd expect from a guy you'd want to be with? I'm dumbfounded at how a piece of skin would stop you from being with someone you genuinely like and enjoy being with.


You make it sound as if I'm gonna fall in love and decide upon marriage within a few weeks. I wouldn't enjoy sleeping with him and that it is quite an important part of a relationship.




> I'm not saying it's racist at all. It's a preference based on racial layout and statistics, meaning ALMOST racist. You would be racist if you only liked Arab guys, but that's not what I'm saying.


It's remains a sexual preference and the fact that it was _INFLUENCED_ by a region does not make it racist since I'm open to other circumcised guys from other races. But since you wanna base it on stats. Whatever.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli said:


> I didn't remember it, it was few pages back. In a realistic argument however, I think it should count. Please stop trivializing how I define my relationships.



In a realistic argument, it should, perhaps. I just fail to see how such a thing would be such a defining thing for you. I prefer girls who shave their pubic hair. That doesn't mean I'll stop myself from dating a girl who doesn't or having sex with them should it come to that. It's trivial, just as the matter of being circumcised or not is trivial when it's a piece of skin that can be removed. That's why it boggles my mind that someone would let such a trivial matter be so important to them.



Eli said:


> You make it sound as if I'm gonna fall in love and decide upon marriage within a few weeks. I wouldn't enjoy sleeping with him and that it is quite an important part of a relationship.



Nowhere did I try to imply as much. What I'm asking is if you knew the guy was circumcised, yet over time you'd still see him as great dating material. Would you think "pity he's uncut, I can't go out with him" or would you think differently?



Eli said:


> It's remains a sexual preference and the fact that it was _INFLUENCED_ by a region does not make it racist since I'm open to other circumcised guys from other races. But since you wanna base it on stats. Whatever.





For the nth time, I didn't say it was racist. When will you actually try and read what I'm saying? Besides, you're the one who brought up stats. I'm the one saying it's illogical to rely on them.


----------



## Spock (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> In a realistic argument, it should, perhaps. I just fail to see how such a thing would be such a defining thing for you. I prefer girls who shave their pubic hair. That doesn't mean I'll stop myself from dating a girl who doesn't or having sex with them should it come to that. It's trivial, just as the matter of being circumcised or not is trivial when it's a piece of skin that can be removed. That's why it boggles my mind that someone would let such a trivial matter be so important to them.


Importance is subjective. You may think its trivial but I take it very seriously and I can assure you that I'm not complaining.



> Nowhere did I try to imply as much. What I'm asking is if you knew the guy was circumcised, yet over time you'd still see him as great dating material. Would you think "pity he's uncut, I can't go out with him" or would you think differently?


You said something but being in love and spending the rest of my life with a person, however realistically, I'd actually find it out if he was circumcised or not within a  short period of time. I still wouldn't have had enough time to consider all these emotions and a life changing decision before finding out whether he was circumcised or not.

You mean uncircumcised ? Sure I'd feel little bit of regret, no one likes to pass up a great dating material but if I know that I wouldn't enjoy a particular activity  ,and a very crucial too, with that great dating material why must I knowingly drag us both into a path it end is certainly inevitable.



> For the nth time, I didn't say it was racist. When will you actually try and read what I'm saying? Besides, you're the one who brought up stats. I'm the one saying it's illogical to rely on them.


Saying almost racist doesn't really make a difference. It is still an irritating accusation. 

I brought stat that show that the majority of males in my culture are circumcised and that might have influenced my preference due to the overwhelming majority. 20% uncircumcised males isnt a tiny percentage either so do I refuse to date uncircumcised Arab men from the 20% because I'm almost racist ? 

If you want to say the I'm almost racist based on solely on these stats then have it your way. Race have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

Eli said:


> Importance is subjective. You may think its trivial but I take it very seriously and I can assure you that I'm not complaining.



When circumcision is such an easy thing to do by a professional, I don't see how anyone can feasibly view it as such a hindrance, which is what you're doing.



Eli said:


> You said something but being in love and spending the rest of my life with a person, however realistically, I'd actually find it out if he was circumcised or not within a  short period of time. I still wouldn't have had enough time to consider all these emotions and a life changing decision before finding out whether he was circumcised or not.
> 
> You mean uncircumcised ? Sure I'd feel little bit of regret, no one likes to pass up a great dating material but if I know that I wouldn't enjoy a particular activity  ,and a very crucial too, with that great dating material why must I knowingly drag us both into a path it end is certainly inevitable.



Or you could still date him and tell him you won't have sex with him unless he gets circumcised. Doesn't mean you have to dump him. Given that it really isn't a difficult thing for a man to do, I can't believe it's worth dumping a guy for or even refusing to go out with him despite having a strong interest in who he is as a person. If he refuses to get circumcised, then the loss is on him, not yours. Sure, sex is important in a relationship since the act of love making is a symbol of the lovers' unity, but it's not all-encompassing.

Really, you're implying being uncut > who the person is.



Eli said:


> Saying almost racist doesn't really make a difference. It is still a an irritating accusation.
> 
> I brought stat that show that the majority of males in my culture are circumcised and that might have influenced my preference due to the overwhelming majority. 20% uncircumcised males isnt a tiny percentage either so do I refuse to date uncircumcised Arab men from the 20% because I'm almost racist ?
> 
> If you want to say the I'm almost racist based on solely on these stats then have it your way. Race have nothing to do with it.



As I said, it's a preference based on the layout of your region. Your preference stems from where you come from. That is fine on its own. It's having expectations from other men based on the layout of a region they're not from, and then not making compromises for said people, that can be viewed as discriminating.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 9, 2012)

xenopyre said:


> I'm not talking about the OP, I could care less about German law since I'm not German, not to mention that it's like digging the ocean water, it won't stop people from circumcising their newborns , we're talking about you considering women preference of cut over uncut men as harmful discrimination .


First, why even asked about the matter of legality then as if there's no matter of such in the case? I simply brought up the OP in response to you acting as if there's no matter of legality as far the common sense about complexity with scale that does matter and your weak claim of nonharmful.

Your argument of "it won't stop people" is still the same lazy rhetoric that claims we don't bother to deal with any form of discrimination as law goes. Allowing stuff to happen just because there are people who will violate a law isn't a good enough reason to suggest that a person's right to integrity should be violated and that we give special treatment just because someone believes something.

It's harmful discrimination where it still shows an ongoing reinforcement of the viewpoint that a medically pointless, free will violating procedure is defensible.


> Actually it kind of is, sexual preferences and by extent the perception of beauty is influenced by the society and the fashion industry,


Those are just gradually reinforced standards, not a direct change of someone's physical body while they are a newborn. It's still not comparable to circumcision. Grown people still have the ability to choose and decide things for themselves that's nowhere near possible for a newborn who is forced into cosmetic injury.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 9, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Yes of course, I don't see the problem.
> 
> I'm concerned about a person and I'm not concerned about a fetus, how difficult is that to understand?



It's not difficult to understand; it's difficult to understand how you can think that this is logically coherent, especially in light of the following statement:



Saufsoldat said:


> No, of course not. There's a difference between terminating pregnancy and maiming a fetus with the intent of still giving birth to it.
> 
> That's like saying if someone's family can decide to turn off life support in case the person falls into a vegetative state, they should also be allowed to hack off an arm of his or take out a few organs for shits and giggles.



Essentially your argument is that the fetus' life is dependent on the intent to give birth.  That'isn't a rational position.

The fetus is either something or nothing.  If it is nothing maiming it should not matter.  If it is something both maiming it and termininating it should matter.

The life support comparison is flawed because that person's fate is not necessarily determined by deactivating his life support.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 9, 2012)

baconbits said:


> It's not difficult to understand; it's difficult to understand how you can think that this is logically coherent, especially in light of the following statement:
> 
> Essentially your argument is that the fetus' life is dependent on the intent to give birth.  That'isn't a rational position.



No, that's not my argument. The fetus is killed during an abortion not because we just love doing that, but because it inhabits the mother's womb and she has a right to decide what happens with her body. Circumcising or in any other way mutilating the fetus doesn't serve any purpose. Doing so will has nothing to do with the mother's right to her own body (if she cared about that, she'd abort the fetus).

In some places it's legal for you to kill someone who invades your house. Yet in none of these places it's legal for you to capture and then torture him. 



> The fetus is either something or nothing.  If it is nothing maiming it should not matter.  If it is something both maiming it and termininating it should matter.
> 
> The life support comparison is flawed because that person's fate is not necessarily determined by deactivating his life support.



No, your black and white view of the situation can't be applied here. Take the analogy from before. Someone breaks into your house, you live in Texas and you're allowed to shoot him. You're not allowed to do that because that person has lost his right to live, you're allowed to do it because your own safety and freedom are in danger.

It is unfortunate that fetuses die when they're aborted, but it's necessary to preserve the rights of the mother if she chooses to enforce them.



If a dog attacks you, no court will give you any crap if the animal gets killed in the attack. If you subdue the dog, every court in the western world will give you crap for torturing it. So you see, there are plenty of things that are neither something nor nothing.


----------



## impersonal (Jul 9, 2012)

For starters, an important point with regards to abortion is that the foetus is not considered to be conscious or able to feel until several months into the pregnancy. So, unless you're a believer in supernatural forces (the soul) there is no reason why the foetus should be treated like a fellow human being. Indeed, it lacks a mind, and has always lacked one. Most of us consider that our identity is defined by our conscious mind (comprising our knowledge of who we are, our sensibility/feelings, our personality, our memories)... The 2 months-old foetus, for example, has never had a mind, and thus has not started to exist as a fellow human. _*UNLESS supernatural stuff.*_



baconbits said:


> The fetus is either something or nothing. If it is nothing maiming it should not matter. If it is something both maiming it and termininating it should matter.
> 
> The life support comparison is flawed because that person's fate is not necessarily determined by deactivating his life support.



Consider this. Either the spermatozoid and egg are something, or they are nothing.

a) If they are nothing, then contraception is acceptable. And, by your own reasoning, "maiming" is also acceptable -- meaning, any genetic alterations can be done to the spermatozoid/egg, even those resulting in huge deformations and suffering.

b) If they are something, then by your own reasoning, contraception in all its forms is murder.

So, either there is a flaw in the analogy, or you agree that all the above is sound (which doesn't seem to be the case considering the conclusions), or your argument has a problem somewhere.


----------



## Roman (Jul 9, 2012)

impersonal said:


> For starters, an important point with regards to abortion is that the foetus is not considered to be conscious or able to feel until several months into the pregnancy. So, unless you're a believer in supernatural forces (the soul) there is no reason why the foetus should be treated like a fellow human being. Indeed, it lacks a mind, and has always lacked one. Most of us consider that our identity is defined by our conscious mind (comprising our knowledge of who we are, our sensibility/feelings, our personality, our memories)... The 2 months-old foetus, for example, has never had a mind, and thus has not started to exist as a fellow human. _*UNLESS supernatural stuff.*_



Even then, it's questionable. I believe in Karma for the most part yet I'm still pro-choice on the matter. To me, it's a matter of the mother's health over the health of the fetus. If the mother risks her life to carry the baby, chances are she'll die in childbirth and so too will the baby. Pro-lifers are so much against abortion that they'd sacrifice a life to avoid abortion? Doesn't make much sense to me if the whole point is to prevent a life from being lost. A lot of pro-lifers will place more importance on the health of the fetus. Bacon confirmed it for me in a previous discussion we've had when he said the mother's health is secondary to maintaining the life of the fetus, or something along those lines.



impersonal said:


> Consider this. Either the spermatozoid and egg are something, or they are nothing.
> 
> a) If they are nothing, then contraception is acceptable (e.g., using a condom, or pulling out, or going for oral sex instead of vaginal penetration, or just practicing abstinence). And, by your own reasoning, "maiming" is also acceptable -- meaning, any genetic alterations can be done to the spermatozoid/egg, even those resulting in huge deformations and suffering.
> 
> b) If they are something, then by your own reasoning, contraception in all its forms is murder.



Why do you think the church is against contraception? Or the fact that church-sponsored hospitals are not willing to provide free contraceptives?


----------



## baconbits (Jul 9, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, that's not my argument. The fetus is killed during an abortion not because we just love doing that, but because it inhabits the mother's womb and she has a right to decide what happens with her body.



This argument can only be valid if you assume your argument is true from the beginning.  In other words you must assume she has a right to decided what happens with the fetus in order to argue that she has a right to decide what happens with the fetus.

I've never argued that anyone kills a fetus because they just love doing so, so we need not discuss that.  What I'm arguing is that your position isn't logically consistent because if the mother has the right to do what she wants with what is in her womb she ought to have the right to circumcise what is in her womb as well.  You cannot have the discussion both ways.

So don't be too caught up about the abortion aspect - I don't intend to get into a full blown discussion on that issue.  It is simply noteworthy that your position isn't logically coherent.



Saufsoldat said:


> Circumcising or in any other way mutilating the fetus doesn't serve any purpose. Doing so will has nothing to do with the mother's right to her own body (if she cared about that, she'd abort the fetus).



Why not?  She can do whatevery she wants in her womb (according to you).  She has absolute authority about what goes on with the fetus, so whether it serves a purpose to you or not she ought to have the right to do it (if we follow your logic).



Saufsoldat said:


> In some places it's legal for you to kill someone who invades your house. Yet in none of these places it's legal for you to capture and then torture him.



I'm not sure how this corresponds to our discussion.  In no place does it say you have absolute authority over any invader into your home.  You've granted the mother absolute authority over her womb, therefore this argument doesn't really apply.



Saufsoldat said:


> No, your black and white view of the situation can't be applied here. Take the analogy from before. Someone breaks into your house, you live in Texas and you're allowed to shoot him. You're not allowed to do that because that person has lost his right to live, you're allowed to do it because your own safety and freedom are in danger.
> 
> It is unfortunate that fetuses die when they're aborted, but it's necessary to preserve the rights of the mother if she chooses to enforce them.



What are you responding to with this?  



Saufsoldat said:


> If a dog attacks you, no court will give you any crap if the animal gets killed in the attack. If you subdue the dog, every court in the western world will give you crap for torturing it. So you see, there are plenty of things that are neither something nor nothing.



No, logically everything is something or nothing.  This is based off of the law of contradiction.  Perhaps I applied the argument too broadly in this case, but something cannot be neither something nor nothing.


----------



## Seph (Jul 9, 2012)

> What I'm arguing is that your position isn't logically consistent because if the mother has the right to do what she wants with what is in her womb she ought to have the right to circumcise what is in her womb as well.





So she ought to have the right to kill what came from her womb as well?


----------



## impersonal (Jul 9, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Why do you think the church is against contraception? Or the fact that church-sponsored hospitals are not willing to provide free contraceptives?


That's a different issue; the church opposes contraception because it opposes sex for pleasure. It opposes abortion for the same reason, but also because there's a widespread belief that the fetus has a "soul".

The reasoning I provided leads to absurd consequences, whatever your initial point of view is, which is why it's a good (imho) reductio ad absurdum.

In the end, preventing someone's life, before it starts, is not the same as causing a future life to be miserable. The first one is acceptable, the second is not.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 9, 2012)




----------



## Mael (Jul 13, 2012)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/13/us-germany-circumcision-idUSBRE86C0IZ20120713


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

Mael said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/13/us-germany-circumcision-idUSBRE86C0IZ20120713



Other politicians have already said this immediately after the ruling.

Of course it doesn't mean shit. This is not a dictatorship, we have a seperation of powers. They'd have to make a law that explicitely allows male genital mutilation, which might stir up a debate. I do hope the conservative right doesn't reverse the landmark decision in human rights.

It's really ridiculous how some think that in a country, in which slapping your children is illegal, maiming them should be a ok.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

I dont feel maimed


----------



## Mael (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> I dont feel maimed



Subconsciously you do...just like me.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> I dont feel maimed



Ah, so the requirement for something to be considered maiming is now that the person himself considers it maiming. In that case I guess millions of victims of female circumcision aren't maimed either. Why do we even have laws against that? We just need to tell the girls that what happened to them is perfectly normal and then they'll no longer be maimed.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

Mael said:


> Subconsciously you do...just like me.





Saufsoldat said:


> Ah, so the requirement for something to be considered maiming is now that the person himself considers it maiming. In that case I guess millions of victims of female circumcision aren't maimed either. Why do we even have laws against that? We just need to tell the girls that what happened to them is perfectly normal and then they'll no longer be maimed.



Since i am a man not a women your point is moot


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> Since i am a man not a women your point is moot



What is this I don't even

Your argument is shit and I just showed you why. If we cut off the left ear of every infant, they wouldn't feel maimed, because everyone would be that way. Does that mean it's not maiming?

You don't get to redefine words because you "feel" that they don't apply.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

how can you compare male and female circumcision? and cutting off an ear is not the same.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> how can you compare male and female circumcision? and cutting off an ear is not the same.



 Please tell me you're trolling.

Your argument was the following:

"I don't feel maimed, therefore I'm not maimed."

Why does this argument apply to male genital mutilation but not female genital mutilation?


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

because what is cut is not the same, girls lose feeling when they get"mutilaited' americans who are"mutilated" can still feel


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> because what is cut is not the same, girls lose feeling when they get"mutilaited' americans who are"mutilated" can still feel



That wasn't your fucking argument. Your requirement for something being considered maiming was whether or not the victim feels maimed.

And circumcised girls can still feel sexual pleasure.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

the parts that get circumcised are different the reason I said it because you are being overly dramatic.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

hammer said:


> the parts that get circumcised are different the reason I said it because you are being overly dramatic.



Go troll somewhere else, this is ridiculous.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

oh please, I only troll in the plaza


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 13, 2012)

More than 500 posts for this thread ? Circumcision is a sensitive subject....


----------



## Mael (Jul 13, 2012)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> More than 500 posts for this thread ? Circumcision is a sensitive subject....



Pen0rz is snstv bzns.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 13, 2012)

Is there someone is this thread that were circumcised and complain about that ? (I didn't fallowed the thread)


----------



## Roman (Jul 13, 2012)

^ Yes, there was.



Mintaka said:


> I myself am cut and I find it as barbaric and unnecessary as they do.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

before I was cut I bleed every time I took of my underwear, every signal fucking time


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 13, 2012)

Well, I was also circumcised but not for religion reason. I'm catholic. I was 8 or 9 years old so the decision was taken by my parents. But for me, it's definitely more comfortable now. It was also done in an hospital, I don't know how they do that for jews and muslim.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

Le M?le Dominant said:


> Well, I was also circumcised but not for religion reason. I'm catholic. I was 8 or 9 years old so the decision was taken by my parents. But for me, it's definitely more comfortable now. It was also done in an hospital, I don't know how they do that for jews and muslim.



this is how jews do it and why people think it is barbaric


[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr0tAKsdBMk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 13, 2012)

no hospital ? no anesthesia ? no disinfectant ?


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

the jewish way is different then the way most people are and it is down for religion, the way in the hospital is safe


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 13, 2012)

Well, it's look scary. Something like that must be done by surgeons. This kind of process should be banned. Jews and others religious should be forced to do it in an hospital and with professionals.


----------



## hammer (Jul 13, 2012)

I think it is comparable to a baptism, but I agree


----------



## Spock (Jul 13, 2012)

My brothers were circumcised in a hospital when they were infants because it's a Muslim cultural tradition.

How prevalent is circumcision in France?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

Ice Princess said:


> You're just trying to steer up an arguement, aren't you? Otherwise what's the point of this thread...



A first world nation just outlawed a barbaric practice that's still rampant everywhere else. What's the point of such a thread in the news section? Gee, I dunno, I guess it's not as important as Obama or Romney tripping over a tree root or UK officials wanting extraterrestrial tourism.



> Anyway, here's how I see it. Circumcision involves removing a part of the penis that isn't that vital (seeing how many men are surviving without it and having a normal sex life), not the whole penis. Female circumcision means removing all the genitals. A lot of girls get infections and die from this. It goes without saying that they don't have normal sex lives.



Removing a girl's genitals? Well okay, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but at what point does "removing all of a girl's genitals" seems like something that's humanely possible to you?

Besides, maiming is maiming, even if the part isn't vital.



> Male circumcision was done traditionally to distinguish Jews from other peoples (yes, I do think it's odd. Who's gonna be looking at their penis?). Female circumcision has no religious or traditional roots. The "best" reason they do it is to purify (from what?) the girls and make sure that when having sex they don't enjoy it more than men. In those cultures, it's unacceptable for women to gain more pleasure from sex than men.
> 
> I know that you don't mention female circumcision as being a terrible crime against humanity- something I would wholeheartedly agree with- but I needed to mention this 'cause if I say anything that you don't agree with you are most likely to say something like "So it's acceptable to circumcise girls?"
> 
> My point was to prove that one really is a crime, as the only reason the people that do it can come up with is for the girl to not enjoy sex, which is truly terrible and cruel. The other doesn't have such horrible reasons and it's not done with a malicious intent.



Well that's bullshit, since female circumcision most certainly does have religious roots, but what really gets me here is that you're implying it actually matters in any way, shape or form.

Are you saying that female circumcision would somehow be less horrible if done for religious reasons instead of just for the heck of it? That's fucked up. You're fucked up.



> Plus, while female circumcision only causes problems, male circumcision (if done properly) not only doesn't cause problems, it can also be good for a man's health. It lowers the risk of infections, helps him have better personal hygiene and makes girls less reluctant to blow him, so you could even say it improves his sex life. No one's gonna go down on someone who is dirty and smells bad. Even if there are alternatives though, to have good personal hygiene, that's not the point here. It goes to show that circumcision does have benefits.



Male genital mutilation can cause plenty of issues, do we have to post the same shit every page?

The great medical risks associated with female genital mutilation are not inherent to the procedure either. If we were to perform it in first world hospitals, it wouldn't be any more dangerous than the male version.

And no, there are no significant advantages, certainly not in first world countries, where body hygiene is not a luxury. It doesn't take more than regular showering for both circumcised and uncircumcised males to be clean. But thank you again for showing everyone your ignorance by talking completely out of your ass.



> Other than that, I have no further opinion on the topic. I don't agree or disagree with circumcision. The effects of it are pretty much neutral, aestheticaly I couldn't care less and it's up to the individual whether they do it or not. There is the issue of personal choice of course, and altering someone's body without their consent it wrong, but on the other hand, the best time to do it is when one is young so that they don't remember it (I'm sure lots of people are thankful for getting the result they want without having to go through the pain). Also, we don't get to choose our names, so there's another thing that happens without one's consent. I'm not trying to say that they are on an equal scale, but you get the gist.
> 
> I'm not against circumcision (unless it's done in circumstances that could make it dangerous) 'cause I don't care enough. In my culture there's not such thing so there's no such arguement. It just seems to me that based on how many Americans do it for no religious reason, people seem to think it's a good idea. After that, feel however you want about it. It's kind of a silly thing to do anyway. How could anyone come up with something like that?
> 
> P.S. You must have got your definition of crime against humanity mixed up. That is defined by something harmful that affects a lot of people in a negative way. Circumcision doesn't do that. Not normally, and even if in some cases it does, those are the exceptions, not the rule, and it doesn't mean it's done with the intent of harming people. Castrating is.



I don't get this argument and nobody here as been able to explain it to me properly. Because circumcision hurts like a bitch, it should be done to people who cannot consent to it? In what plane of reality does this make any sense whatsoever?

Having your wisdom teeth removed hurts like hell, too, yet we don't let parents decide to have them removed without medical reasons and consent.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 13, 2012)

Ice Princess said:


> Baby: +Won't remember it
> -Can't consent
> 
> Grown up: +Can consent
> ...



No, the only bad news about waiting until you grow up to decide, is that no one would do it, and thus those assholes who do the procedure won't get their new cars.


----------



## Ice Princess (Jul 13, 2012)

Toroxus said:


> No, the only bad news about waiting until you grow up to decide, is that no one would do it, and thus those assholes who do the procedure won't get their new cars.



You mean no none would choose to do it? Don't say that. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean other men don't want to. Everyone has their own reasons. 

I think the best is to wait until one can decide on their own (and by the same rule we should all be given temporary names until we are old enough to decide what we want to be called. What? I hate my name and I don't see why others should get to decide about something so important). I'm sure some men, even if it's only a few would choose it. If not, then fine. Each to their own. If you say no one would do it, then you could also say no woman wouldn't choose to cut her vagina (vaginoplasty) to make it prettier (apparently that's a big business too). I don't understand what posseses one to do that, but if that's what they want, fine. I'm not gonna jump about saying how wrong it is just because I think it's stupid and unecessary.

As for the bastards and their cars, who gives a fuck? Like they won't find another way to scam vict- uh, I mean patients.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 13, 2012)

You know... Out of all arguments in favour of circumcision remaining legal, only one sensible has been presented in this thread and that's the argument that if circumcision is illegal, people seeking to mutilate their children might chose to do so through unofficial and unsafe means.

So I'm personally undecided on whether making it illegal is good or not.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 13, 2012)

Ice Princess said:


> The outside ones, whatever. And it is possible to remove them all. It happens in cases of say, cancer, when they have to save people's lives.



How do you remove someone's vagina...? I don't think you know anything about the female anatomy.



> Then so is piercing, tatoos, liposuction, nose jobs, boob jobs, wart removal, etc. Tell me, in what society has there been absolutely no maiming? Especially the piercing thing. You know how many people pierce their children's ears when they're babies and can't give their consent?



Well, the hole of an ear piercing closes again if you don't put anything in it for a while and most of the shit you mentioned cannot be performed on infants or people who cannot consent to it in general, so that's kind of a self-defeating argument.



> No, that's not what I'm saying. It's just as awful. But I've read part of a book written by a woman who has gone though that. She said that if there was a reason, maybe she wouldn't feel as mad that something like that had happened to her, she would be able to justify it. There wouldn't be that "why" in her head going unanswered and causing her such frustration. I don't know how true it is, that's what she says. To me it's just as terrible.
> 
> I am fucked up, but for various other reasons.



If it were in more mainstream religions, then it would probably have a position similar to than of male genital mutilation and we'd have to fight even harder to remove that disgusting practice from the face of the planet.



> Most people don't have my level of inteligense and can't follow my train of thought. Don't sweat it. And please stop twisting my words. I didn't say it should be done to people who can consent. I said that the fact they can't is the only problem. You don't remember being born or even most of the things that happened when you were a baby. So, if you are circumsized then, you won't remember it. The problem is that you can't consent to anything at that age. When you get to an age when you can, it'll be more difficult than it would if you'd have it done as a baby. So (I'm gonna dumb this down even more, if possible, 'cause obviously I need to. I overestimated your inteligence) you've got:
> 
> Baby: +Won't remember it
> -Can't consent
> ...



How is that even remotely even? Let me list the advantages and disadvantages of heaving a giant stick rammed up your asshole as a baby or as a grown up:

Baby: + Won't remember it
         - Can't consent

Grown up: + Can consent
               - Will remember it

Looks pretty even, amirite? Your "argument" sucks donkeyballs and can be applied to anything and everything we could conceivably do to a baby.



> This is not the arguement you want to bring up with me. I desperately want my wisdom teeth out when they show up (five thousand on braces and then those fuckers show up and screw me over? No thanks! Pull those fuckers out!) Frankly, I wish I hadn't got something like wisdom teeth to look forward to. They appear at around 20, right? That doesn't give me much time...



I don't see how that changes my argument in the least. You want to make the decision, as an adult (or at least close to adulthood, I presume), nobody here wants to deny you that right (even though it's stupid to have your wisdom teeth removed if you don't even know whether or not they'll be a problem) just like nobody here wants to tell adults that they can't get circumcised. The problem is forcing it upon people that can't consent.



> I didn't say I agreed with circumcision. I said I think it's silly, you dumb fucked up fucking fucker. See? I can use the f word. It's that easy. It doesn't make you sound any smarter. And you know you need all the smart you can get...



Don't get your panties in a bunch. If you can't take "the f word", then get off to internet.



Ice Princess said:


> I'm not proud of it. I haven't been reading the thread so I just posted my opinion and got attacked for it. But I can't blame anyone but stupid me for trying to reason with people like that.



You must be new to the caf?. You cannot expect to post uneducated opinions without anyone calling you out on it.


----------



## Seph (Jul 13, 2012)

> I said I think it's silly, you dumb fucked up fucking fucker.



What are you, a 10 year old?


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Jul 13, 2012)

This is a tricky thing for me. On one hand I understand the argument against circumcision. On the other hand, it the US the people who make the argument are a bunch of dirty fucking woo-woo hippies and I am inclined to disagree with them out of sheer spite. I can't have kids so my opinion on the matter has no practical importance but if I did someone have a baby boy I would defer the penis related decision to the father.


----------



## neodragzero (Jul 13, 2012)

Ruby Tuesday said:


> it the US the people who make the argument are a bunch of dirty fucking woo-woo hippies


Yeah, that doesn't like an ignorant generalization at all whatsoever.


> I can't have kids so my opinion on the matter has no practical importance but if I did someone have a baby boy *I would defer the penis related decision to the father.*



Shouldn't you be in a kitchen rather than typing here then?


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Jul 14, 2012)

lol, people take it so seriously. To be honest, I'm more shocked by the way it's done by the Jewish community. 
Ok, you can condemned the fact it's done to a baby who doesn't give his consent but come on.......why being so serious. Being circumcised is not ok, it's not a terrible thing to live with.


----------

