You’re a fucking tool, you know that? I did NOT defend circumcision. I merely said, stop exaggerating, and stop saying you were molested. Because you weren’t, and you fucking know it. If you really, truly feel that way, you need to see a counselor.
Great post/username combo!
I think this argument has come to a head.
See what happens when you don’t nip things in the bud.
True. I mean, you could head things off at the pass, try to cut all the excess garbage out. But by now, what’s the point?
See, this I don’t understand. If circumcision is a form of sexual assault, then isn’t it a form of assault every time it happens? Is everything done in a religious context okay, no matter what it is?
It’s just a weird double standard.
Whether or not circumcision qualifies your mother as a sex offender. Obviously there are exception classes.
It’s legal, so at this time nobody is going to become a registered sex offender over it.
But why is it legal? It seems that ordinary medical ethics do not apply. Presenting: healthy person showing no signs of disease. Diagnosis: amputate! Because there might be a disease at some point down the line, and any treatment or prevention regime is apparently futile so here at one week of age it is our. only. chance.
Sorry I am having trouble seeing why more parents don’t rub two brain cells together over this one. I’m not sure what they were expecting, but I don’t think amputation is really the way to go about meeting expectations.
Who’s exaggerating? It amounts to quite a chunk of your junk. If we were talking about Kim Tran (who was charged with 1st degree sexual assault) then yah, she’s chopping off half or more. But if the answer is no percentage is ok, then the comparison does kind of carry some force, no? Who is to say the motives are not similar either? Tran wanted to curtail her husband’s ability to function sexually. Compare to this from wiki:
Is that why it is popular in secular America? Social engineering? I’m not sure I should be subject to such efforts.
Why aren’t medical ethics consistent when the question turns to circumcision? Why aren’t there analogous examples of pre-emptive amputation? Anyway, you can see how someone might conflate a circumcising parent for a sex offender, “Whoops, excuse me, I assumed the ethics were consistent. My bad! Chop away. Please, may I have another?”
And this with the therapy again, why can’t people be unhappy about anything anymore without having to go to therapy? It seems like a thought terminating cliche when you do it like that, rather than edifying like when I make a psychological observation. Say I think people who claim there is no sensational difference between with and sans are in denial. I could compare their position to the people who have their stomachs stapled but report no change in appetite. The people who get an eye gouged out but report no change in vision. And so on. If proposition A=change an organ, then conclusion B=change a function. I write that A->B, I say people claiming no difference are in denial that B follows from A. I don’t mean that as a judgement though- it happens for a reason. And that subject isn’t the crux of my complaint here, but it is an honest rebuttal anyway.
There are too many points I still have not had time to answer yet and I regret that. But y’all should be more patient than one day for an answer. Heck, I have forever to figure it all out, no?
I guess it might look that way, but no.
No.
It isn’t really, but I don’t want to go into it in this thread. Later, sorry.
Well that’s convenient. I sense you have no justification for this bizzarre exception you have made.
Speaking of your friend Kim, you never responded to what I said about that case:
So, what is it? Do you think that the Tran case is a useful comparison because parents are actually having the foreskin cut off in an act of angry retaliation? Or do you believe that intent plays no part in whether or not something is a crime? Or do you just believe that anytime someone touches a weenie, it’s sexual assault charge time?
Incidentally, *lots *of things parents do to their minor children would be considered assault if you did them to another adult without their consent.
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive
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.
Huh? Are You saying that the victim should stop whining after the attacker pulls out?!?
You are losing this big time and obviously You are desperately throwing in everything that You can get without stopping to think what You actually are saying.
Sorry, but I had to bump this thread with some details of a new study that was just published:
But is it “legitimate” rape ?
Wow, your foreskin was HALF your dick? You must have the worlds’ smallest dick. I guess I’d be upset too if I had the worlds’ smallest dick.
Also if you come back to continue trolling then you should stop telling people to “fuck off” as it is against the Pits’ rules. I would have reported you but the mods don’t seem to hand out mod notes/warnings for nearly month old infractions.
See, here’s what gets me: every time the subject of circumcision comes up, people invariably start talking about dick size, and I wonder whether any of them have actually seen an uncircumcised penis. In case anyone is somehow unaware, the foreskin is not on the end of the penis, and taking it away doesn’t make the penis shorter. It’s like a turtleneck shirt, more or less. Sure, it might fold completely over the head of the penis - when it’s flaccid - and thus make it look a little longer, but that’s like pulling your turtleneck up over your head and saying you look taller. If anything, taking it off would make the penis narrower, not shorter, and only by a fraction of a millimeter. And when the penis is erect (the only time when length matters), there’s no difference in length or width between a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised one.
“Half my dick”? You’d have to have the world’s smallest dick, indeed. Not just short, but incredibly skinny, too. Maybe the size of a golf tee. But then, circumcision would be the least of your problems, really. Poor guy.
I’m trying to find pics I have seen of an infant circumcision and the amount of tissue removed is very shocking, far more than you would expect.
I can’t vouch for the validity of all the claims on this anti-circ site but it helps illustrate that the foreskin is actually a skin tube that when laid flat is very large.
That’s not at all shocking, and exactly what I would expect. And it still has nothing to do with dick size.
Yeah, it looks like the amount that would retract when a guy gets an erection. So I don’t know how it’s going to make Try2B Comprehensive be “asexual”. Unless his was botched.
On the other hand, I suspect his brains may have been in his foreskin. That’s the only explanation I can come up with. (A rape victim “stops being raped” indeed. Like that makes it all hunky-dory)
(And once again, I do not agree with routine circumcision – I think it’s stupid and unnecessary. I would not go so far though, to call it mutilation and compare it to rape, FGM, and “having your dick chopped off”)
the actual protection garnered is very low. Penile cancer is extremely rare as well. Further, rates of HIV actually increased in Sub-Saharan Africa as circumcised men ditched protection believing they were naturally protected.
Education and basic cleanliness are the way forward. The efforts to justify non-medically necessary circumcision are almost as hysterical as the OP.
Also the article no information on their actual study. It strikes me as fear mongering.
That’s actually a very good summation. Well put.
Not half my dick? Yah, that is hyperbole. But the amputated part amounts to 15+ square inches of skin on an adult, which is not insignificant. How would you like it if I amputated 15 square inches of skin off of you for no reason? I’d be the goddamn Merchant of Venice!
After all this, no one has answered one of the central questions in all this: in what other cases do we recommend amputation on a healthy patient?
And of course it is comparable to FGM, it involves amputating analogous structures. Unless you want to get hysterical about conflating cases that aren’t analogous with those that are.
And no, I’m not suggesting that rape victims ought to feel better- I don’t even understand where this line of thinking comes from. My point is that circ is a sexual assault with a permanent anatomical effect. It’s like being turned into some category of eunuch, though on that point I bump back into my categorization struggle…