Not comparable? Admittedly, the missing arms would impose a serious disability, but a foreskin containing some 40,000 nerve endings ain’t nothin’ to sneeze at.
I read through your whole post waiting for that. 
I might as well answer the question. I don’t have any sexual problem. What I think it is is there’s a structure in my brain that is supposed to be connected to something but is not, and instead it makes me angry. Not in the sense of having an opinion about something which gets you worked up, but more like a tinnitus kind of thing. If anger is a piano in a dark room with a light installed in one of the keys, the tinnitus thing is the moth that keeps flying into that one key.
I’d call it a dis-ease, even if it is only a nuisance. I’d say it caused me harm, aside from the obvious. I don’t have a criticism of Germany over their law, though it does seem touchy to have the religious focus. I’d ban it for non-medical reasons, I’d leave banning it for religious reasons to the lawyers.
Actually, I think gay men like myself, who have been able to closely compare the pleasure and performance of cut and uncut penises, are better able to estimate the harm done by circumcision first-hand. After all, what real basis of comparison does a straight male circumcised at birth have?
From my own experience, when I have had sexual relations with uncut men, I have clearly noted far great pleasure, flexibility and sensitivity in the penis of my partner. Frankly, my poor tool with its skin covering brutally hacked away reminded me of a kid whose pant hems have been cut three inches above the ankle and who has to go around looking like a geek.
Neither did I; I spoke about mandating the offering of circumcision. Do you think prophylactic circumcision to avoid possible infection should be one of the medical exemptions allowed by this law?
On the contrary, what I like about the German ruling is that it does not give religion a free pass. Religion has been getting away with murder (almost literally) in too many cases.
Where do you draw the line? What about Jehovah’s Witnesses who let a baby die without a blood transfusion for religious reasons? Did you know that JWs allow children to die without a transfusion based on a vague reference to avoiding blood, found in the New Testament, and which does not even mention blood transfusions?
What about conservative Christian sects who have killed or seriously injured children by the ritual of “beating the devil out of them”?
What about female genital mutilation? I KNOW that neither Islam nor any other religion demands it, and that non-Muslim countries in Africa also practise it widely, but the heavy incidence of FGM in many Muslim countries suggests that even if the religion does not demand it, religious attitudes to virginity, to the right of a woman to pleasure and to the role of a woman in society must have SOME incidence upon it. Is it possible that the Koran’s stress on virginity and the role of woman as a “field” to be “tilled” by a man indirectly contributes to acceptance of mutilations that deprive a woman of her ability to feel sexual pleasure?
“Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit, für das deutsche Vaterland!” GO GERMANY!
Just accepting for the sake of argument that gay men are better judges of penises, Dan Savage of Savage Love disagrees with you. He said that in his experience, the only real difference between a cut and uncut penis was the taste.
Dan Savage has no taste! Besides, he is talking about the sensation for the PARTNER of an uncut man, not for the uncut man himself.
And I have also known partners who had been circumcised in adulthood, and who therefore have adult memories of sexual expience in both states. In my opinion, these are the ones who can make the most valid comparsions, don’t you think?
I have admittedly only had two or three such partners in my life, but all of these men have confirmed that the circumcision deprived them of a lot of pleasure and sensitivity.
Yes.
You are trying to justify religious nuttery with secular reasoning.
If you are going to do so then it’s only fair that circumcision, even for religious reasons, face the same scrutiny. A pact with G-d will require quite some proof!
Where in Cecil’s name did I do that? I said there was NO secular reason for routine circumcision.
Yes, I know. I don’t know where to draw the line. My best guess: at harming people. Personally I don’t want religion telling me what to do, so I try to avoid telling them what to do. Legal constraints on religion amounts to a huge can of worms which I am probably not the most qualified to sort out.
Personally, I think chopping my foreskin off is a violation akin to rape. I realize the words ‘ritual genital mutilation’ are associated with something very severe and specific and people might accuse me of demagoguery if I conflate my circumcision with it, but I think it is an apt phrase. They mutilated my genitals in a specific way, and I wouldn’t call it ‘medicine’ since there is no damn good reason for it, so call it ‘ritual’.
I would kind of like to sue the hospital where it was done. But I’d like to avoid giving the false impression that I have a bone to pick with Jews or Muslims. I don’t.
I beg to differ. I masturbated before I was “cut” and have masturbated since then and it was still thoroughly enjoyable.
I was not referring to your view of circumcision.
You were justifying other things with secular arguments.
You have two choices as I see it. Either don’t try to justify anything about your religion, a position which is philisophically tenable, internally consistent (assuming there are no contradictions which I doubt) and also laughable and ought to be ignored or pitied as delusional raving. Alternatively try to justify some of its positions - in which case circumcision becomes fair game.
But did you have sex with another person before and after? Also, I think we can eliminate the possibility that you, Ibn, were one of the two or three men circumcised in adulthood that I had sex with.
[quote=“Confused dart cum, post:154, topic:626686”]
I was not referring to your view of circumcision.
You were justifying other things with secular arguments. QUOTE]
Such as?
Only in the same sense that someone might resent their parents for lying to them about Santa Claus. If you have an actual poll about the people who have a problem with it, you’ll find that a vast majority have never had it happen to them, or else they’d realize how completely uneventful it is. All the horror stories about it are as false as that crap about how you will go blind if you masturbate. Even the crap about needing lotion to masturbate is false
I was circumcised as a baby. I know it’s not that big a deal. I honestly start to wonder if the problem isn’t circumcision, but badly done circumcisions. The only difference between my penis and an uncircumcised one is purely cosmetic. And I think it’s stupid to get all up in arms about a cosmetic change.
Is this thread just an excuse for guys to brag about their penises, or what?
Every damn time man, every…damn…time.
You’d think circumcised guys were compelled to trumpet to the world how functional and wonderful their circumcised penises are!
Agreed.
I’ve never met anyone IRL who was outraged about getting circumcised or insisted they were a victim because of it.
It’s only on the internet that I run across people claiming that they’re victims of being “mutilated” or that they suffered something akin to “rape.”
Hell, I’m probably the only person on this thread who remembers mine, remembers the weeks it took to recover and I don’t feel that way.