Attn circumcised: your mother is likely a sex offender

[MarcusF]

Originally Posted by Maastricht

<snip>

In most recent news (last Friday, 13 july 2012), the German Prime Minister, Angela Merkel, has overthrown the judges decision and religious circumcision is still legal.

Off topic but for the sake of accuracy Angela Merkel has not overthrown the Cologne judges decision - as the Head of Government of a liberal democracy she can't overrule judges. She's said she is opposed to it but it will need a higher court to overturn the decision.

ps She''s no kids so probably not a rapist!

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Carmady

Look at the mother on your left. Now look at the mother on your right.

Both of them are sex offenders.

Foreskins to the left of me, rapists to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

[Drunky Smurf]

If the OP has not tried to prosecute his own mother then he is just a fucking lieing, shit-eating, baby-raping, circumcising troll.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally Posted by mhendo

The OP should move to Germany.

The OP should date Madonna

[Try2B Comprehensive]

It's taking longer than we thought...

Originally Posted by Meyer6

a) is there a reason why you keep italicizing pathos?

I thought one was supposed to. Incorrect?

b) assuming for a moment that you have a point, why do you think cicumsicion is a sex crime as opposed to, say, medical malpractice or assault or non-sexual child abuse? Are you of the belief that anything to do with a penis must necessarily have something to do with sex?

Compare it to the Kim Tran case. Remember that one?

While the man was tied up, Tran went to the kitchen, got a knife then went back into the bedroom. In a fit of anger, she used the knife to sever her partner's penis, which she then flushed down the toilet, the article stated.

Tran has since been charged with three felony counts including, first-degree sexual assault, domestic violence and tampering with evidence.

You would rightly say, "But those aren't the same thing!" Not exactly, but let's look at the differences and see if circumcision moves out of its orbit:

-The victim in the Tran case had half his penis cut off, way more than is lost in circumcision. Yup. At this point we are getting into more of an analogy with the most lurid cases of FGM. But what if the Tran case had amounted to a circumcision? What if she had the guy tied up, took a kitchen knife and only cut off his foreskin? Clearly she violates rules against trained medical staff performing circumcisions in this case, but still, do you think the police would have ignored it? Do you think the victim would have ignored it? I think if we adjust the Tran case to more closely resemble circumcision, it still winds up 1st degree sexual assault.
EDIT: Spontaneous submit. Continued in next post.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

[quote=Meyer6;15280664]
-The victim in the Tran case is an adult. Yup. I'm concerned about infant circumcision. But in general, aren't crimes committed against helpless children considered more severe than those committed against adults?
-The victim in the Tran case was handcuffed. Yup. But of course infants are helpless by their nature. This one is a wash, notable because this kind of thing seems to happen alot to helpless people and not much to willing people.
-Tampering with evidence? Let's just ignore that.
-The relationship in the Tran case is lovers, not parent-child. Yup. I think this is your only argument, to show that the 'sexual' part of the first degree sexual assault charge derives from the relationship and not the nature of the crime. But of course giving birth is about as sexual as it gets, but then again... but someone is just going to make a poop joke in this forum.
-In the Tran case, the motive is vengeance or malice, not so in circumcision. Yup. And I'd be willing to concede that a mere barren, featureless vapidity for a motive might mitigate the crime to some degree. But would it absolve one of responsibility? Consider:
Officer: Sir, are you aware of how fast you were going back there?
Yokel Guy: derp.... derp....derp....
Officer: OK, forget it. I am issuing you a ticket for speeding.

Isn't that how it works? Unless the vapidity is excessive such that the officer asks the offender to step out of the car...

Ultimately I am saying that if we treated a just-born person as a real person with legal and human rights, and someone came along and chopped off some fraction of their penis without consent-or-a-medical rationale (or a religious one), we would rightly regard that as (at least) a case of first degree sexual assault.

There are other differences between the cases I'm sure, you are welcome to point them out and argue that circumcision should not share the same first degree sexual assault status as the Kim Tran case. That'd be refreshing, as I'm seeing a lot of denial-driven strawman bullshit being bandied about in this thread. I think you'd lose that argument, but I bet it won't happen to begin with.

And of course as of today circumcision for no reason whatsoever is not on the books as a crime, so of course there can be no prosecution of anybody on my part. Or can there? Legally I'd go after the hospital and merely label your mother a sex offender. But time and money would prohibit, and maybe it could be settled.

c) have you ever thought that maybe you have too much time on your hands?

HA!
That'll be the day! I have been smothered by my schedule lately. I can't get a freaking minute! I'm so busy I have literally skipped meals. I wish!!!!!

But one thing especially I do not have time for is to deliver the proper reproof to every instance of knavery as required by so many of the responses to this thread.

[Guinastasia]

You need to put down the paint thinner.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Vlad/Igor

You know what? I was circumcised as an infant in the early 1960s, a barbarous time indeed for male infants. I have never had a foreskin, and I don't miss it. I. Don't. Care. If Try 2 B Comprehensive can understand and accept my rejection of victimhood, then we can have a fruitful discussion. Otherwise, I have no patience or any interest whatsoever in manufactured victimhood. Unless you create the feelings of victimhood and mutilation, they don't automatically appear in circumcised men.

Let me reiterate: I. Don't. Care. I am perfectly happy with who I am and how I appear, despite your attempts to make me feel less.

I am not engaging in manufactured victimhood and have no motive toward that 'status'. I don't seek pity. If you aren't bothered by this, ultimately that is your business. I do suspect if you viewed it in a certain (and certainly truthful) way you would certainly object to it, but your 'rejection of victimhood' could easily be the result of something like letting sleeping dogs lie, as any attempt to change the state of affairs would be futile anyway. I agree, the feelings you describe do not 'automatically appear in circumcised men'; however, they can certainly arise without the subject ever buying a ticket to any I-need-attention conventions.

How's that?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It does reduce the rate of HIV transmission, so there's that.

Then there's AIDS Cure Is Back on Agenda

Long considered out of reach, a cure for AIDS is emerging as a potentially realistic goal among researchers and activist groups who have been battling the 31-year global epidemic.

And there is always the circ wiki:

Over forty observational studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection.[82] Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV.[83][84][85][86]

In a word: inconclusive.

Why are you in such a rush to perform an amputation on an infant for a disease that very well may be cured by the time the 'patient' even reaches puberty, especially considering that said benefit is itself questionable?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by 42fish

He's also willing to at least consider giving a pass to religiously-motivated rape.

Long story short, I think Talmudic law and Sharia law deserve more respect than a lot of people display.

Long story short, the absence of justice in the world is a classical and perennial problem. People react in all sorts of ways, mostly futile if not foolish. Muslims and Jews however devised systems of laws, truly monumental steps in the history of resistance to injustice IMHO.

My position is a little convoluted. Do I approve of theocracy? Not really. Do I agree with all of the conclusions of Talmudic or Sharia laws? Obviously not. But these are ancient traditions and honorable, worthy attempts. It is apparently what is best to them and I am not going to contradict them on the validity of their religions. If sincere religious people submit their kids to circumcision for reasons deriving from religious law, I am not going to stop them. I am not the guy that replaces their rabbi or imam or what-have-you. And compared with these systems, modernity hasn't been around very long. They have a lot of inertia, and not for no reason.

A lot of people criticize how these systems arrive at their conclusions, and I can see why. But it isn't my place to revise such a thing for their practice. Look, today Muslims do not fight with the weapons they used over a millennium ago- today they use guns, rockets, fighter jets and so on in recognition of the ongoing conversation in that field. Eventually they may change their policy on circumcision on their own. I'm not going to be the one to force the issue for them.

But circumcision for no good reason? In that case I refer you to the thread title.

Circ isn't rape. It may be worse if it isn't justified. But that discussion can't happen here.

[Meyer6]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The relationship in the Tran case is lovers, not parent-child. Yup. I think this is your only argument, to show that the 'sexual' part of the first degree sexual assault charge derives from the relationship and not the nature of the crime. But of course giving birth is about as sexual as it gets

First of all, what a weird case to try to compare to circumcision. I actually don't remember that case or know much about it, but I'd say the fact that these people were lovers and not parent-child does change the situation substantially. Giving birth is not sexual except in the sense that reproduction is an end result of sex, and if you want to go down that route we'd have to say that pretty much everything is sexual, since reproduction is pretty much central to the human condition. Attempting to describe the relationship between parent and child as sexual or equate it with a sexual relationship is quite a stretch.

An assault like the Tran case clearly has the intention of punishing the victim for some kind of sexual indiscretion (Lorena Bobbitt cut of her husbands penis because he had tried to rape her earlier that night, IIRC). No matter how strongly you feel about circumcising a baby, I can't imagine that anyone could argue that the parent was attempting to punish their baby for some kind of transgression the baby had committed. Do you believe that intent matters not at all? Do you think that if you assaulted someone and chopped their leg off, you'd get charged with exactly the same crime as a doctor who mistakenly amputated a patients leg (say due to misdiagnosis of a non-cancerous tumour or something)? The intent of the doctor was totally different than the intent of the assaulter.

Ultimately I am saying that if we treated a just-born person as a real person with legal and human rights, and someone came along and chopped off some fraction of their penis without consent-or-a-medical rationale (or a religious one), we would rightly regard that as (at least) a case of first degree sexual assault.

Circumcision is not typically done without consent. The parents consent to the procedure for their child - parents can consent to many medical procedures for their kids. If you want to complain about circumcisions that are truly done without any kind of consent, I can get behind that.

There are other differences between the cases I'm sure, you are welcome to point them out and argue that circumcision should not share the same first degree sexual assault status as the Kim Tran case. That'd be refreshing, as I'm seeing a lot of denial-driven strawman bullshit being bandied about in this thread. I think you'd lose that argument, but I bet it won't happen to begin with.

I'm not sure why you think I'd be unable to respond to your point. Anyways, I don't see any strawmen in this thread - and just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're in denial.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

But what if the Tran case had amounted to a circumcision? What if she had the guy tied up, took a kitchen knife and only cut off his foreskin? Clearly she violates rules against trained medical staff performing circumcisions in this case, but still, do you think the police would have ignored it? Do you think the victim would have ignored it? I think if we adjust the Tran case to more closely resemble circumcision, it still winds up 1st degree sexual assault.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The victim in the Tran case is an adult. Yup. I'm concerned about infant circumcision. But in general, aren't crimes committed against helpless children considered more severe than those committed against adults?

The flaw in your analogy is that newborns are not legally allowed to make decisions on surgery. If a 2 year old has operable cancer that will, if left untreated, kill her within 5 years, she is not the one who gets to say no to the surgery, because the law does not believe she understands the stakes involved. She does not meet the legal requirements to give informed consent. Her parents are allowed to overrule the child and order the surgery against the child's wishes, because they are believed to be more aware of the long-term effects of the decision, and deemed to be able to give informed consent on the child's behalf.

Likewise, ignoring the issue of the newborn actually being able to communicate whether or not he wants a circumcision, his parents have the final decision, because newborns are legally incompetent, and cannot offer informed consent. That's the law. His parents are authorized by the state to make legal and medical decisions on his behalf, because he is unable to understand and appreciate them. It's been the law since the beginnings of civilization. The exact opposite of illegal, which is what the term sex offender means.


In other words:

You have absolutely no legal grounds to refuse a circumcision as a newborn. You can argue that that's wrong, which is a stupid thing to argue given the limited mental abilities and cognitive functioning of newborn children, but you cannot argue that it is illegal, because the law is what it is. There quite literally is no crime here, because it is specifically written into the law to prevent children from making stupid decisions about things they literally cannot understand.

Show me a newborn that meets the legal definition of informed consent, and I'll give you your argument.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

If sincere religious people submit their kids to circumcision for reasons deriving from religious law, I am not going to stop them. I am not the guy that replaces their rabbi or imam or what-have-you. And compared with these systems, modernity hasn't been around very long. They have a lot of inertia, and not for no reason.

And this, is the ultimate irony in your argument. You decry circumcision as barbaric and cruel, and a sexual crime. But you have an asterisk for those who do it for cultural reasons. What if every single circumcision in this country happens for cultural reasons? What if your mother had you circumcised because she believes in the Talmudic traditions? Is she still a sex offender? You create a loophole in your argument that a 747 could fly through. You decry it in one sentence, and support it in another. Pick a side, and stick with it, don't try and backtrack to avoid offending people. It shows a lack of integrity. And if you're not doing it to avoid offending people, then your argument is simply not thought through well enough to cover all cases. It is an incomplete thesis.

[miss elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

But of course giving birth is about as sexual as it gets.

lN WHAT SENSE?!

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Circ isn't rape. It may be worse if it isn't justified.

Oh no he didn't.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by miss elizabeth

lN WHAT SENSE?!

Maybe he's saying that's the only time he's been in contact with a vagina.

[SticksAndString]

Well there are proponents of something called "orgasmic birth" where you actively try to give yourself the greatest orgasm you've ever had in the process of delivering. Personally, I'm not buying it but hey..whatever floats yer boat.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Maybe he's saying that's the only time he's been in contact with a vagina.

Thanks for throwing the commoners some low-brow humor, Vinyl. I laughed out loud.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by SticksAndString

Well there are proponents of something called "orgasmic birth" where you actively try to give yourself the greatest orgasm you've ever had in the process of delivering. Personally, I'm not buying it but hey..whatever floats yer boat.

That's some pretty masochistic shit right there, man.

[SnakesCatLady]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Maybe he's saying that's the only time he's been in contact with a vagina.

*loud applause*

[Battle Pope]

Originally Posted by SticksAndString

Well there are proponents of something called "orgasmic birth" where you actively try to give yourself the greatest orgasm you've ever had in the process of delivering. Personally, I'm not buying it but hey..whatever floats yer boat.

My wife tried that but the doctors asked us to stop as we were making the operating table shake too much.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by miss elizabeth

lN WHAT SENSE?!

erm, it is sexual reproduction. In the sense of, "what sex is for (mostly)". Being born is uniquely sexual- how can it not be? It certainly isn't asexual reproduction.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

erm, it is sexual reproduction. In the sense of, "what sex is for (mostly)". Being born is uniquely sexual- how can it not be? It certainly isn't asexual reproduction.

No, birth isn't "sexual reproduction". Conception is, dumbass.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

What if every single circumcision in this country happens for cultural reasons? What if your mother had you circumcised because she believes in the Talmudic traditions? Is she still a sex offender? You create a loophole in your argument that a 747 could fly through. You decry it in one sentence, and support it in another. Pick a side, and stick with it, don't try and backtrack to avoid offending people. It shows a lack of integrity. And if you're not doing it to avoid offending people, then your argument is simply not thought through well enough to cover all cases. It is an incomplete thesis.

I wasn't circumcised for Talmudic reasons, which amounts to most I know about the motives. For people to assert categorically that it was not done for punitive reasons or with punitive intent (especially if the true motivator of the intent is some 3rd party actor with some sick reason for wanting to multiply circumcisions in the population) amounts to an appeal to woo via clairvoyance.

I can't believe you don't understand why I would not take this up with Judaism or Islam. Let me put it back to you in legal terms: that is not my jurisdiction. You can argue that my jurisdiction is so small as to not exist, but insofar as those traditions go, I really am not going to stand up on a soapbox and tell the Ayatollah how to run his busines and expect his followers to be cool with that.

In this culture, however, mothers and fathers are allowing amputations on their otherwise healthy newborns for practically no reason whatsoever! Point this out and everyone freaks out and starts hurling accusations and getting snippy. At least you don't get this problem with Muslims or Jews- they can at least tell you why it was done. I have some harsh words for people who would allow something so severe without any thought, but that probably just traces back to my personal feelings about bullshit.

Not legally a sex offender? Not under our code, but I don't think anybody is really thinking about the policy. It isn't worth doing, it amounts to an assault- I don't see why people are surprised to frame it as a sexual assault, aside from denial of what it is we're fucking talking about- so that some douchebag can get a check from Medicaid. Why keep doing it?

But you are correct, it is an incomplete thesis. The thread got dropped into the pit, so some of the points I am not bringing up here. This thread mostly addresses the unabashedly punitive response to circumcisers, probably the only response capable of achieving real results in the actual world absent something like, oh I don't know, withdrawing Medicare/Medicaid subsidization for the procedure.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

birth isn't "sexual reproduction".

I am going to have to become a member of this board now so I can make this my tag.

Mods, will you still have me?

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I wasn't circumcised for Talmudic reasons, which amounts to most I know about the motives. For people to assert categorically that it was not done for punitive reasons or with punitive intent (especially if the true motivator of the intent is some 3rd party actor with some sick reason for wanting to multiply circumcisions in the population) amounts to an appeal to woo via clairvoyance.

Oh man, it's good you put that link in, cuz NO ONE on this board knows what clairvoyance means.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I can't believe you don't understand why I would not take this up with Judaism or Islam. Let me put it back to you in legal terms: that is not my jurisdiction. You can argue that my jurisdiction is so small as to not exist, but insofar as those traditions go, I really am not going to stand up on a soapbox and tell the Ayatollah how to run his busines and expect his followers to be cool with that.

So you don't think it's your business what the Jews or Muslims do, but god dammit those Christians and Atheists are all sexual predators.

Is that right? Cuz that's what it sure sounds like in this paragraph. You think that your jurisdiction (which you're right, does not exist) is too small to pass judgement on Judaism and Islam, but is big enough to pass judgement on Christianity and Atheism? You won't tell the Ayatollah he's a sexual predator, but you'll scream it in the Doctor's face, and the face of every parent who has their child circumcised, because they're not doing it for "acceptable" reasons in your baseless assumption?

Again, lack of integrity. Either a rule holds true for everyone, or it's a worthless affectation.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

In this culture, however, mothers and fathers are allowing amputations on their otherwise healthy newborns for practically no reason whatsoever!

Cite that they do it for no reason whatsoever. You don't get to just decide why people are doing it without evidence, based entirely on your own assumptions.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Point this out and everyone freaks out and starts hurling accusations and getting snippy. At least you don't get this problem with Muslims or Jews- they can at least tell you why it was done. I have some harsh words for people who would allow something so severe without any thought, but that probably just traces back to my personal feelings about bullshit.

If you had any aversion to bullshit, you would have avoided posting such an obviously confrontational thread with such an attention-whoring title.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Not legally a sex offender? Not under our code, but I don't think anybody is really thinking about the policy. It isn't worth doing, it amounts to an assault- I don't see why people are surprised to frame it as a sexual assault, aside from denial of what it is we're fucking talking about- so that some douchebag can get a check from Medicaid. Why keep doing it?

People are surprised you label it sexual assault because other people know that not everything penis related is sexual. We've advanced beyond Freud, and realize that holding in urine doesn't mean we want to jerk off.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

But you are correct, it is an incomplete thesis. The thread got dropped into the pit, so some of the points I am not bringing up here. This thread mostly addresses the unabashedly punitive response to circumcisers, probably the only response capable of achieving real results in the actual world absent something like, oh I don't know, withdrawing Medicare/Medicaid subsidization for the procedure.

This completely ignores all the medical evidence in favor of circumcision, like the 30-60% reduction in HIV infection for heterosexual men, prevention of phimosis, balanoposthitis, protection against urinary tract infections, and various cancers.

But that doesn't matter, cuz circumcision is wrong.


And surely you've realized by now that the tone of the argument has less to do with your argument itself (which is still simplistic and too general to be useful) than it does about how you present yourself. Act like a pompous know-it-all, and people treat you like one. If you were to ever restart this thread with a less combative, defiant tone, you'd actually get some pretty constructive dialog. And I'd even be willing to contribute without mockery, too. But starting a thread with a title like this is just stupid if you want constructive dialog.

[Ann Hedonia]

My parents are the sickest of them all, then.............they not only circumsized my little brother, they had special cards made and sent them to all their friends.

Seriously. My father was a graphic artist and he designed birth announcements for all of us. My brother was the first boy after several girls. His card showed a picture of my father's face, close-up with an expression of shock........and the caption was $25 bucks for a circumcision???

As you might imagine, this was a long time ago

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I am going to have to become a member of this board now so I can make this my tag.

Mods, will you still have me?

You don't have to be a member to have a sig. Otherwise, be my guest. It'll make you look like a dumbass, but go ahead.


(Did you note where I said "conception"? You're already "produced", you just have to be taken out)

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

like the 30-60% reduction in HIV infection for heterosexual men

Which is hardly relevant in developed countries with high rates of prophylaxis use.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

Which is hardly relevant in developed countries with high rates of prophylaxis use.

But is highly relevant in developing countries with low rates of prophylactic use.

And last I checked, developed countries still get penile and prostate cancer.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

So you don't think it's your business what the Jews or Muslims do, but god dammit those Christians and Atheists are all sexual predators.

Is that right? Cuz that's what it sure sounds like in this paragraph. You think that your jurisdiction (which you're right, does not exist) is too small to pass judgement on Judaism and Islam, but is big enough to pass judgement on Christianity and Atheism? You won't tell the Ayatollah he's a sexual predator, but you'll scream it in the Doctor's face, and the face of every parent who has their child circumcised, because they're not doing it for "acceptable" reasons in your baseless assumption?

It is a different thing when Jews do it. I am pretty sure the same holds for when Muslims do it, I am not completely sure, but I am not addressing Muslims with this thread as I do think Islam is a valid reason to circumcise one's child if one sincerely intends to raise them in that fashion.

Christians don't have their own religious law- Corinthians (1? 7?) prohibits it. And besides, one of the themes of Christianity is that one need not do every damn fool thing in the OT. So I feel entitled to call them out, but especially Americans who circumcise their children for foggy reasons. I don't think the medical reasons amount to a justification. At. All.

I apologize but there is a limit to how much I will say about it in this thread. The final thread on the topic ought to answer the question to your satisfaction.

Again, lack of integrity. Either a rule holds true for everyone, or it's a worthless affectation.

Depends on whether or not everyone is doing the same thing.

Cite that they do it for no reason whatsoever. You don't get to just decide why people are doing it without evidence, based entirely on your own assumptions.

Cite common sense for yourself! The medical reasons amount to a judgement against the child. The authorities claim the foreskin is dirty; it MUST be removed. No way this child can care for it- apparently the child is stupid or something. The foreskin will attract STDs; it MUST be removed. No way this child can wear a condom- apparently the child is stupid or something. And apparently also some kind of slut or whore.

So. The (one week old!) child is a dirty, stupid whore, and therefore its foreskin MUST be removed. Yes, I call that, "no reason whatsoever". Also punitive if not tortuous. If you don't like it, I guess you can fuck off.

If you had any aversion to bullshit, you would have avoided posting such an obviously confrontational thread with such an attention-whoring title.

The bullshit is the continuing acceptance of circumcision. The law is a 3rd party. Part of my (and many of yours) penis is missing. My parents take part in the blame. There's your stop. The law comes after and tries to separate the two, a repeated avenue of denial in this issue.

People are surprised you label it sexual assault because other people know that not everything penis related is sexual. We've advanced beyond Freud, and realize that holding in urine doesn't mean we want to jerk off.

The foreskin has an especially sexual function, though all its functions are not sexual. To target it, and it alone, for amputation amounts to a sexual assault. I am sorry you don't like that. Who are you trying to protect?

This completely ignores all the medical evidence in favor of circumcision, like the 30-60% reduction in HIV infection for heterosexual men, prevention of phimosis, balanoposthitis, protection against urinary tract infections, and various cancers.

If there is a medical necessity, I am sure you can demonstrate it for every individual case. If you are talking about statistics it starts to sound like you are accusing me of being a whore. In which case you can fuck off. Look at some wiki quotes:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[60]

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are as good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exist for female genital mutilation (FGM).[12]

But that doesn't matter, cuz circumcision is wrong.

You're arguing with a lot more people than just me. You need to re-examine your faulty position if you can't mount a better argument than this fucking bullshit.

And surely you've realized by now that the tone of the argument has less to do with your argument itself (which is still simplistic and too general to be useful) than it does about how you present yourself. Act like a pompous know-it-all, and people treat you like one. If you were to ever restart this thread with a less combative, defiant tone, you'd actually get some pretty constructive dialog. And I'd even be willing to contribute without mockery, too. But starting a thread with a title like this is just stupid if you want constructive dialog.

I don't have a choice about how I present myself; they chopped half my dick off. So I guess you ought fuck off until you come around.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

It is a different thing when Jews do it.

And my point is that that creates a double standard. A loophole that allows one to game the system.

What happens when a non-practicing in-name-only Jew has their son circumcised, and can't even point out where circumcisions are mentioned in the Torah?

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I don't think the medical reasons amount to a justification. At. All.

Why not? Because your dick having some extra skin is more important than living a long, prosperous life free of cancer?

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Cite common sense for yourself! The medical reasons amount to a judgement against the child. The authorities claim the foreskin is dirty; it MUST be removed. No way this child can care for it- apparently the child is stupid or something. The foreskin will attract STDs; it MUST be removed. No way this child can wear a condom- apparently the child is stupid or something. And apparently also some kind of slut or whore.

You're applying western standards of living to all people who perform circumcisions. In some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, they don't have access to condoms. I'm pretty sure the AIDS epidemic there isn't due to everyone being in one giant, cross-country orgy. Newsflash: You can get it from being raped. Developing story: Sex with a virgin was thought to be a cure for HIV in some parts of Africa, leading to rape. In Further news: You don't even need to get raped to contract it, the virus really doesn't notice a person's intent. And now sports: You can transmit HIV to the fetus in utero, and blood transfusions.

Also, common sense citation:

Originally Posted by Common Sense

People don't generally do things for no reason. They kind of want a reason.

Citation

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

So. The (one week old!) child is a dirty, stupid whore, and therefore its foreskin MUST be removed. Yes, I call that, "no reason whatsoever". Also punitive if not tortuous. If you don't like it, I guess you can fuck off.

Such language. You're the one making blanket generalized statements that all adults who have their sons circumcised are sexual predators, and now you're getting angry because you're Freuding some shit into my argument that was never there?

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The bullshit is the continuing acceptance of circumcision. The law is a 3rd party. Part of my (and many of yours) penis is missing. My parents take part in the blame. There's your stop. The law comes after and tries to separate the two, a repeated avenue of denial in this issue.

When does "denial" become people just plain disagreeing with you? Or is there such a thing? I'm pretty sure the law just disagrees, and not because the lawmakers were terrified to talk about their penises, or were absolutely furious that some people had theirs in-tact.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The foreskin has an especially sexual function, though all its functions are not sexual. To target it, and it alone, for amputation amounts to a sexual assault. I am sorry you don't like that. Who are you trying to protect?

I am the Illuminati. I protect the large, multinational pharmaceutical companies that pump drugs into your drinking water.

Also, what is this "special sexual function"? I was under the assumption, and many evolutionary biologists tend to agree, that the foreskin evolved to protect the head of the penis from injury that could lead to scarring, and the inability to release semen.

They seem pretty sure evolution didn't give us foreskins just so our dicks would be more vaginodynamic.

I may as well toss this here, too. Turns out the sex I have is exactly the same sensations as Uncircumcised Joe.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

If there is a medical necessity, I am sure you can demonstrate it for every individual case. If you are talking about statistics it starts to sound like you are accusing me of being a whore. In which case you can fuck off. Look at some wiki quotes:

Yes, by arguing circumcision has valid medical reasons and citing impersonal statistical analysis about reductions in cancer and STD transmission rates, I am calling you, as an individual, a whore.

...What?

And kudos for using a report that's 13 years old. Nothing of scientific value has been discovered since the late 90's. Especially not with regards to cancer or the nature of HIV transmission, and AIDS' impact on pateints' lives.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

You're arguing with a lot more people than just me. You need to re-examine your faulty position if you can't mount a better argument than this fucking bullshit.

I'm not even trying, man. I have better things to do in life than obsess about what my penis looks like.

It's just interesting to watch how radically you defend your position.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I don't have a choice about how I present myself; they chopped half my dick off. So I guess you ought fuck off until you come around.

You don't have a choice about whether or not you act like a pretentious asshole online... because your penis got hurt...?

Pretty sure that has nothing to do with it. You're being an asshole, because I'm calling you out, and doing it in a tone you don't like. Even if you knew I'm right, you won't admit it, because you want to spite me. You won't give me the "satisfaction" of being right, but you end up just making yourself look obsessed with your own penis.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

But is highly relevant in developing countries with low rates of prophylactic use.

Well, the OP is addressing members of a US based site, though I cede his argument is more general than that.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I don't have a choice about how I present myself; they chopped half my dick off.

That must have been where your sanity was located.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Pardon my absence, I just can't be on here all the time. Also, gawd, this subject is disgusting

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

And my point is that that creates a double standard. A loophole that allows one to game the system.

What happens when a non-practicing in-name-only Jew has their son circumcised, and can't even point out where circumcisions are mentioned in the Torah?

It is not so difficult. In the latter case the parents shouldn't bother. You'd need a positive religious legal reason to proceed, which your "JINO"s apparently would not be able to produce.

Why not? Because your dick having some extra skin is more important than living a long, prosperous life free of cancer?

Such dip-shittery. The cancer risk is laughably low as a justification for amputative surgery on a previously healthy week-old infant. Will you look for yourself at the numbers? From the National Cancer Institute?

Estimated new cases and deaths from penile (and other male genital) cancer in the United States in 2012:


New cases: 1,570
Deaths: 310

In a country of 300-400 million people, there were ~1500 cases. ~300 deaths; a 20% mortality rate for a disease that afflicts, what, 1 in 200 million men? Maybe we exclude everyone under 18, even then the risk is an order of magnitude at least away from one in a million. Only a urologist with a financial interest would recommend circumcising every male child. Its like goddamned Herod you stupid motherfuckers. What is wrong with you all if it is not denial?

You're applying western standards of living to all people who perform circumcisions. In some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, they don't have access to condoms. I'm pretty sure the AIDS epidemic there isn't due to everyone being in one giant, cross-country orgy. Newsflash: You can get it from being raped. Developing story: Sex with a virgin was thought to be a cure for HIV in some parts of Africa, leading to rape. In Further news: You don't even need to get raped to contract it, the virus really doesn't notice a person's intent. And now sports: You can transmit HIV to the fetus in utero, and blood transfusions.

The Catholic Church promotes no condoms, which has an effect. But also, you are basically saying that the infant is going to be statistically guilty of rape, and will therefore be less dangerous if circumcised. It is all just a sick excuse. I admit I don't fully understand the motivation behind mass circumcision.

Also, common sense citation:
Citation

Gee thanks for that. I've asked for it before and have repeatedly not got an answer. Analagous medical ethics are along the lines of cases of advanced diabetes complications or gangrene: "If we do not amputate the extremity we will likely lose the limb, if not the patient." Medical ethics bend to the breaking point around the issue of circumcision- why do you think that is? Consider the Hippocratic Oath:

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

Why would you impose 100% loss-of-extremity to prevent a 1 in 10 million condition with a 20% mortality rate?

Such language. You're the one making blanket generalized statements that all adults who have their sons circumcised are sexual predators, and now you're getting angry because you're Freuding some shit into my argument that was never there?

Oh what. I already declared the "unabashed punitive" voice. It is harder than it looks, you ought to show more appreciation. And don't give me your Freudian hand-waving bullshit. The medical reasons are in fact accusatory, in a way that we would find inappropriate in anything but a Philip K. Dick novel.

When does "denial" become people just plain disagreeing with you? Or is there such a thing? I'm pretty sure the law just disagrees, and not because the lawmakers were terrified to talk about their penises, or were absolutely furious that some people had theirs in-tact.

Denial occurs when a conclusion B follows from A, but the subject's mind will not accept the connection. My theory includes the notion that the associations of A and B are incompatible, and so the mind compartmentalizes them in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. I've seen worse theories frankly. I suppose the law is being warped by financial and religious interests. I am open to alternative theories.

Also, what is this "special sexual function"? I was under the assumption, and many evolutionary biologists tend to agree, that the foreskin evolved to protect the head of the penis from injury that could lead to scarring, and the inability to release semen.

Generally, proponents of circumcision assess the "downside" of the procedure of having a value of Zero. The forced cluelessness reminds me of clashing with evangelicals.

I may as well toss this here, too. Turns out the sex I have is exactly the same sensations as Uncircumcised Joe.

By what mechanism? Magic? Look, in my case I fear the long-term consequences of circumcision mean I am sort of going asexual. This isn't really fair to my gf. She is the kind of person who throws away better personal opportunities to teach English to African refugee children for not much more than minimum wage, or to tutor the underprivledged high school students, all because she values what will do the most good most. And she's unselfconsciously gorgeous. Why would you want to disrupt her sex life? Even if you hate men and male sexuality with all your heart and think every single one of us ought to be surgically altered to the brink of anhedonia, can't you at least stop to consider that this can affect other people as well?

Asexuality could be the kind of thing that undermines a marriage. If you are responsible for that, under the eggshell skull rule for instance, one's vapid thoughtlessness could reach out across the decades to unabashedly punish the mother of someone's gf for apparently no defensible reason whatsoever. Why would you neglect to include these effects in your risk-reward analysis?

Yes, by arguing circumcision has valid medical reasons and citing impersonal statistical analysis about reductions in cancer and STD transmission rates, I am calling you, as an individual, a whore.

...What?

Look, your position is so stupid I was doing you a favor by folding your comments in to some of the others in the thread, suggesting dirtiness and STDs as a result of leaving a person intact, as if these are not preventable if not curable conditions that do not require preemptive amputation.

And kudos for using a report that's 13 years old. Nothing of scientific value has been discovered since the late 90's. Especially not with regards to cancer or the nature of HIV transmission, and AIDS' impact on pateints' lives.

What an idiotic comment. The 'risk' you are protecting us from is practically non-existent in the case of the cancer, and preventable in the case of HIV. Are you a urologist's lawyer?

I'm not even trying, man. I have better things to do in life than obsess about what my penis looks like.


It's just interesting to watch how radically you defend your position.

It'll make more sense after you realize I am right. Also realize that the only way the results from my POV can ever make anyone happy AFAICT is if I stir up antipathy in an audience, and then tell them about it. See Guinistasia, even a terrible person like me can find a way to care! Have some comedy music to go with your sentiment!

But my issue isn't cosmetic. It isn't even in this thread. This got dropped into the pit, the thread quickly devolved into an almost total knaviary, I switched gears. Hopefully people will get tired of the dick jokes and be able to take the subject seriously in the final thread.

You don't have a choice about whether or not you act like a pretentious asshole online... because your penis got hurt...?

Pretty sure that has nothing to do with it. You're being an asshole, because I'm calling you out, and doing it in a tone you don't like. Even if you knew I'm right, you won't admit it, because you want to spite me. You won't give me the "satisfaction" of being right, but you end up just making yourself look obsessed with your own penis.

The tone, again, is the "unabashed punitive" voice. If you don't like it you need to quit your support for routine circumcision. Psychoanalyzing me is just a dodge; stop it. This isn't even about me, let alone my penis.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

In a country of 300-400 million people, there were ~1500 cases. ~300 deaths; a 20% mortality rate for a disease that afflicts, what, 1 in 200 million men? Maybe we exclude everyone under 18, even then the risk is an order of magnitude at least away from one in a million.

There are about 151.4 million males in the United States.

That means that, with 1,570 new cases, the rate is actually about 1 in 100,000 annually, not 1 in 200 million, as you preposterously suggest.

If we restrict it to men over 18, the male population is about 110 million, meaning that 1,570 cases is a rate of about 1 in 70,000 annually.

Personally, i agree with you that these levels of male genital cancer don't constitute a compelling argument for circumcision, but if you want to retain any credibility at all in this thread, you could at least get your mathematics right.

[Guinastasia]

Quit comparing yourself to a rape victim. You weren't fucking raped, you've never been raped, and unless you had a botched circumcision, you did NOT have "half of your dick chopped off."

Look, in my case I fear the long-term consequences of circumcision mean I am sort of going asexual.

WHAT "long term-consequences"? Do you think you're somehow going to be impotent or something? Have you HAD issues because of your circumcision, specifically? Or are they all psychological and emotional? Seriously.

[Battle Pope]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I don't have a choice about how I present myself; they chopped half my dick off.

Any yet you're still a colossal prick.

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

WHAT "long term-consequences"? Do you think you're somehow going to be impotent or something? Have you HAD issues because of your circumcision, specifically? Or are they all psychological and emotional? Seriously.

A botched circumcision leading to restricted blood-flow to his brain would explain a lot.

[Ele the Stoic]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

It is not so difficult. In the latter case the parents shouldn't bother. You'd need a positive religious legal reason to proceed, which your "JINO"s apparently would not be able to produce.

So it's a legal reason now? As in, we have to present the doctor with proof of our "religiousness" before he can perform a circumcision?

We're going to walk around carry "certified jew" and "authentic muslim" cards?

Cuz religious law is completely unenforceable here, and means absolutely jack to the real law.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Such dip-shittery. The cancer risk is laughably low as a justification for amputative surgery on a previously healthy week-old infant. Will you look for yourself at the numbers? From the National Cancer Institute?

I am fully aware of how distant the risk is even in the worst circumstances. It still exists, and circumcision still helps prevent it.

I'm also aware that it's not your choice if it's a worthy tradeoff when the parents are considering whether or not to have a circumcision performed.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

What is wrong with you all if it is not denial?

Disagreement with your base thesis, of course.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

But also, you are basically saying that the infant is going to be statistically guilty of rape, and will therefore be less dangerous if circumcised. It is all just a sick excuse.

I just want to let you know, you are completely pulling this "statistical rape" stuff directly out of your ass through willful misinterpretation of my points.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Gee thanks for that. I've asked for it before and have repeatedly not got an answer. Analagous medical ethics are along the lines of cases of advanced diabetes complications or gangrene: "If we do not amputate the extremity we will likely lose the limb, if not the patient." Medical ethics bend to the breaking point around the issue of circumcision- why do you think that is?

Not long ago doctors weren't even allowed to perform surgery. Barbers did. I think ignoring the Hippocratic oath there, and allowing for surgery to be performed by knowledgeable specialists with information about the human body and how it works in sterile operating rooms was a good idea.

The Hippocratic oath used to mean something. Used to; before people realized how stupid it was.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Why would you impose 100% loss-of-extremity to prevent a 1 in 10 million condition with a 20% mortality rate?

Because the parents wanted it.

And they have near dictatorial legal ownership over the baby. Quite literally almost on the same level as chattel slavery. Pretty much the only thing they can't do is kill them, or try and kill them. You seem to operate on some emotional "babies are people" type of assumption - an assumption which, while noble in its face, is completely unsupported by law. If babies were equal people with adults, they would be eligible for the death penalty. But they're not, because they literally are not as cognitively developed, and don't have grasp over the concepts of cause and effect. Babies are not truly legally on the same level as adults until after their 21st birthdays. 18 doesn't cut it anymore - you can only do almost everything a full citizen can.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The medical reasons are in fact accusatory.

I fail to see how.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Denial occurs when a conclusion B follows from A, but the subject's mind will not accept the connection. My theory includes the notion that the associations of A and B are incompatible, and so the mind compartmentalizes them in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. I've seen worse theories frankly. I suppose the law is being warped by financial and religious interests. I am open to alternative theories.

I have one: The law is the codified result of society's thoughts on how things should operate after thousands of years of civilization testing the boundaries with different possibilities.

Society has declared that unduly interfering with a parent's wishes in the raising of their child is frowned upon. Has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance, it's much simpler - this is the way it worked acceptably throughout history. It wasn't broke, so we didn't fix it.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

By what mechanism? Magic? Look, in my case I fear the long-term consequences of circumcision mean I am sort of going asexual. This isn't really fair to my gf.

This literally makes no sense to me. Fear is meaningless in this. How many circumcised men throughout history have been father to dozens of children? I don't even understand how you came to this conclusion outside of purely psychological grounds. Missing part of your skin, wherever that skin may be from, does not have any bearing on your sexual functioning. You're ascribing traits to the foreskin that are simply not there. Oft repeated and assumed traits, sure, but science doesn't lie. There is no measurable difference. Johnny Uncut simply is not having harder orgasms and making your ex-girlfriend more satisfied than you ever could, no matter how militantly he claims he is. How could he possibly know? He has only one reference point.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

She is the kind of person who throws away better personal opportunities to teach English to African refugee children for not much more than minimum wage, or to tutor the underprivledged high school students, all because she values what will do the most good most. And she's unselfconsciously gorgeous. Why would you want to disrupt her sex life?

Whether my penis has extra skin has no bearing on her sex life. Foreskins do not produce greater orgasms in girls. Honestly, man, this is the root of your argument, whether you admit it to yourself or not. You've been hinting at it since page one - you feel inferior to uncircumcised men because you feel neutered, and like less of a man. That's not stupid. What is stupid is attaching yourself to that feeling of insecurity so strongly that even solid, independently verifiable proofs cannot shake it.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Even if you hate men and male sexuality with all your heart and think every single one of us ought to be surgically altered to the brink of anhedonia, can't you at least stop to consider that this can affect other people as well?

Of course I realize it can affect other people. A lot of girls really dislike uncircumcised penises, and think they're hideous; that's an effect. What is not an effect of circumcision - as demonstrated by scientific inquiry and analysis - is that foreskins increase sexual pleasure. They just plain don't.

Meanwhile, it is demonstrated that circumcision has medical benefits. However unworthwhile they may be to you.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Asexuality could be the kind of thing that undermines a marriage. If you are responsible for that, under the eggshell skull rule for instance, one's vapid thoughtlessness could reach out across the decades to unabashedly punish the mother of someone's gf for apparently no defensible reason whatsoever. Why would you neglect to include these effects in your risk-reward analysis?

Because it is completely disconnected. Lots and lots of people who get circumcised go on to live very long, fulfilling lives filled with plenty of kids. Arguing that it can result in asexuality and destroy a marriage and thus a person's life causing them to commit suicide is ignoring the rest of the population.

Correlation does not imply causation. Give me a million years and I can find you a million uncircumcised asexuals.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Look, your position is so stupid I was doing you a favor by folding your comments in to some of the others in the thread, suggesting dirtiness and STDs as a result of leaving a person intact, as if these are not preventable if not curable conditions that do not require preemptive amputation.

I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't do me any more favors. They're not helping to advance your argument, and are in fact completely derailing them.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

What an idiotic comment. The 'risk' you are protecting us from is practically non-existent in the case of the cancer, and preventable in the case of HIV. Are you a urologist's lawyer?

No, like I said, I'm in the Illuminati.

And again... Not all circumcisions happen in the western world. The world doesn't revolve around us here in North America and Europe. For a very large portion of the world's population, HIV is not preventable short of absolute abstinence.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

It'll make more sense after you realize I am right.

Good argument.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

Also realize that the only way the results from my POV can ever make anyone happy AFAICT is if I stir up antipathy in an audience, and then tell them about it.

And? Your inability to convert others to your side doesn't make your arguments better.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

But my issue isn't cosmetic. It isn't even in this thread. This got dropped into the pit, the thread quickly devolved into an almost total knaviary, I switched gears. Hopefully people will get tired of the dick jokes and be able to take the subject seriously in the final thread.

What's really sad, is I am taking this seriously. I'm not going nuts torturing myself wondering what masterful and witty argument you're going to come up with next and how I can counter it with my faulty illuminati-logic, but I sure am taking them seriously.

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

The tone, again, is the "unabashed punitive" voice. If you don't like it you need to quit your support for routine circumcision. Psychoanalyzing me is just a dodge; stop it. This isn't even about me, let alone my penis.

It's entirely about you and especially your penis. You've made that abundantly clear through paragraphs like the one above. Maybe you want and believe there to be a greater purpose to your arguments, but at the end of the day, you yourself implied it makes you feel inferior by saying it's not fair to your girlfriend.

Have you asked her what she thinks? What was her reasoning for preferring uncircumcised penises? If it's anything other than "No, it makes no difference to me", then she's a vastly superficial, vain, and selfish person.

[Freakenstein]

Try2B, I have no beef in this fight, I just saw the title and was 'what the...?', so I entered and I am even more 'what the...?'.

You seem to think that it's ok for Jews and Muslims because they have done it so long.
I'd like to know in what year it changed from child abuse to a cultural tradition and how children responded mentally to that? Also in what year it will become a fine tradition in America instead of child abuse?

You are clearly playing with two balls here ( it's a perfectly clean football metaphor here around... ), so try to be comprehensible.

Sorry if you already answered to this, but I just got overwhelmed after three pages.

But I think You have a point, the first guy to do this really was a perv and he just got the rest duped with eloquence.

( This is My first post so I may send this wrong way or to wrong place or something... )

[Guinastasia]

No, you sent it to the right place, and good call, my friend.

[Trinopus]

By and large, I agree with you, but wanted to nitpick just a little.

(God knows we need some intelligent dissent in this thread; our accuser certainly isn't providing it!)

Originally Posted by Ele the Stoic

. . . The Hippocratic oath used to mean something. Used to; before people realized how stupid it was. . .

Seems to me there is much of wisdom in it. Sure, it fails to serve our modern ethics, but like the Ten Commandments or the Magna Carta, it is worth respecting and admiring. It was a very early attempt to codify right and wrong. Overall, it got more right than wrong!

And they have near dictatorial legal ownership over the baby. Quite literally almost on the same level as chattel slavery. Pretty much the only thing they can't do is kill them, or try and kill them. . . .

Well, no, our accuser has some justice on his side: parents are not allowed to harm their children. They can cut off a foreskin or two, but not an arm. They can shave the kid's head (how many of us grew up with "military" haircuts?) but they can't scalp the kid surgically.

If our accuser could demonstrate that circumcision was actually harmful, he and other abolitionists might have a valid point.

Missing part of your skin, wherever that skin may be from, does not have any bearing on your sexual functioning. You're ascribing traits to the foreskin that are simply not there. Oft repeated and assumed traits, sure, but science doesn't lie. There is no measurable difference. Johnny Uncut simply is not having harder orgasms. . .

This: the claim of "harm" is not supported.

How could he possibly know? He has only one reference point. . . .

This is easy: lots of men have been circumcised as adults, and have, in fact, two reference points: "before" and "after." And their reports have universally been "Meh: not much difference." This is what utterly kills the claims of the abolitionists: solid scientific evidence that...it doesn't really matter a damn!

No, like I said, I'm in the Illuminati. . . .

Orthodox Illuminati or Reform Illuminati? (No one counts "Liberal Illuminati" as being Illuminati at all.)

What's really sad, is I am taking this seriously. . . .

Well, now and then a serious answer to a nutcase argument is a good idea. It shouldn't all be derisive rejection. A sliding scale is in operation, depending on how nutty the argument is. For a really stupid one, like our accuser's, a 9 to 1 ratio is about right.

[Robb]

What do you think you proposed as a subject for debate?

[SticksAndString]

Originally Posted by Battle Pope

My wife tried that but the doctors asked us to stop as we were making the operating table shake too much.

LOL
When we took our tour of the maternity ward at the hospital, the nurse who was giving the tour warned the guys that if they wanted to sleep in our room (there was a couch that turned into a cot thing), they would have to wear pajama bottoms, or at the very least, non-see through boxer shorts. They'd had implement that rule after coming in to check on the new mom/baby and found waaaay too many nekkid daddies passed out on the couch-cot thing.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Personally, i agree with you that these levels of male genital cancer don't constitute a compelling argument for circumcision, but if you want to retain any credibility at all in this thread, you could at least get your mathematics right.

I got the 'apologia' vibe off that poster. Often that is associated (correlated? caused?) with a devastating innumeracy. I pitched a softball to see if he could hit it- I can't blame you for jumping on that one. I rolled the dice, I didn't get the number. It was worth a try. If I weren't good with numbers I would never have attempted such a stunt.

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Freakenstein

Try2B, I have no beef in this fight, I just saw the title and was 'what the...?', so I entered and I am even more 'what the...?'.

You seem to think that it's ok for Jews and Muslims because they have done it so long.
I'd like to know in what year it changed from child abuse to a cultural tradition and how children responded mentally to that? Also in what year it will become a fine tradition in America instead of child abuse?

You are clearly playing with two balls here ( it's a perfectly clean football metaphor here around... ), so try to be comprehensible.

Sorry if you already answered to this, but I just got overwhelmed after three pages.

But I think You have a point, the first guy to do this really was a perv and he just got the rest duped with eloquence.

( This is My first post so I may send this wrong way or to wrong place or something... )

No, it really is a different thing raised in a culture of religious law. The point isn't how long they've done it.

Look- for one thing I don't decide who is or isn't a member of this or that religion. Ask them.

-I don't replace people's religious leaders. The unobservant are free to take my advice.

Judaism and Islam really are valid exceptions. You'll have to wait for the final thread for the full explanation why. The medical reasons really are garbage- they violate another Hippocratic principle, the admonition against therapeutic nihilism. They put radical, amputative infant surgery at the front of the line, without even giving preventative medicine a chance. It really isn't more complicated than using a toothbrush you know. Routine circumcision is so stupid, its secular proponents ought to be punished unabashedly!

[Try2B Comprehensive]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Quit comparing yourself to a rape victim. You weren't fucking raped, you've never been raped, and unless you had a botched circumcision, you did NOT have "half of your dick chopped off."

I wasn't raped. All my comments on this point come down to the fact that a rape victim stops being raped, but you can't stop being amputated. Does everything have to be relative? Does one sucky thing take away from another? I'm sorry I brought it up, in my groping for context I only stumbled into guilt.

ETA: what percentage of my dick is it ok to chop off?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive

I got the 'apologia' vibe off that poster. Often that is associated (correlated? caused?) with a devastating innumeracy. I pitched a softball to see if he could hit it- I can't blame you for jumping on that one. I rolled the dice, I didn't get the number. It was worth a try. If I weren't good with numbers I would never have attempted such a stunt.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you arguing that you threw out an incorrect number on purpose, just to test the other person? If that's what you're saying, i simply don't believe you.

You claim to be "good with numbers," and yet when you actually try to use them, you apparently suck at it.

[Maastricht]

FWIW, my son isn't circumsized, and he is now four. And yes, he has had one medical problem that may not have occurred if he had been snipped. Something under his foreskin got infected and there was redness and swelling and it was a very painful few days for him. Needed antibiotics, too.

We, his parents, micht have prevented it by routinely retracting his foreskin with each bath. But that is very hard with a boy who doesn't even like baths all that much, hates having his hair washed, and now we have to add painful fillding with his penis to the mix? Good lord, then I might as well forget getting him to bathe at all or fight him tooth and nail each time. So I didn't.
(IIRC, with toddler boys, the foreskin doesn't retract on its own as it is still attached, and the parent would really have to "break" a thin piece of skin to retract it. After age three or four, it becomes easier.

All if this is a long story to say that I might see at least some benefits to circumcision. If the benefits outweigh the cons, that is another matter on which I have no opinion.

[Smeghead]

For such an inflammatory OP, this thread has turned out surprisingly dull.

One might say that it doesn't have much in the way of a point.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Smeghead

One might say that it doesn't have much in the way of a point.

Cut it out.