*I think I already impugned myself for felony laziness above.
**Stab me and sink me, gentle interlocutor, and keelhaul me for violatin’ the iron rule of irony–not on this board…without them little faces to help folks thru the mist, as twere,…
Forgive an old pirate’s way of askin’ you to put yourself in the baby’; s place, so to speak.
of COURSE I have no present memory of my families’ faces beaming just as I got mydick cut–But it happened, I was there, that WAS my phenemonology and if you think it didn’t help make me the son of a bitch I am today, well, you sir or madam, are a true romantic…
How is it as a Jew you can’t spell the word Mohel? :dubious:
Also, as a Jew, you’d be aware that the reason you were circumsized involved the convenant with Abraham, and not the historical anthro-psychology theories you are spinning.
What’s up with that?
And fyi, provided the rest of your childhood was relatively untraumatic, your circumsion wouldn’t have any bearing on your present disposition. Please find something else to blame it on. Or, hey, better yet, stop making excuses and try changing into a more pleasant person, since you acknowledge you have “some issues.” Your argument would hold more water if even just one circ. man I knew felt the same way.
I’m unhappy with having been snipped. I wouldn’t undertake surgery, skin stretching or whatever else, but I’m still unhappy. The fact that not many people do this doesn’t prove they are OK with having been circumcized.
If I were pitching Yahweh for his public relations account, the two things I would use to sell my services in lieu of his present crew are the stories presently going around about him,
viz:
he has a sado-masochistic fetish going involving the ritual cutting of genitalia…
He is such an unreliable power hungry ball buster that he can promise is first adherant, that man who bore membership card number !(and he wasn’t even married to Yahweh like Kedija was to Mohammed–wives are easy pickings in the new despensation game…) promise him seed beyond number yada yada yada and then its,
Hey, Abe
Snuff the kid.
Don’t fuck with me, Abe, snuff the kid.
Abe;Hey, this was supposed to be the miracle kid…
Don’t fuck with me Abe
Oh shit, ok, I’ll snuff the kid.
Just kidding, Abe.
so anyway, I wouldn’t lean on Yahweh in the mutilation game because it might piss him off when he hears what you say about him, ya feel me?
It perhaps betokens a failure of imagination or a reliance on some [psychosexual statute o limitations, to arrive at a a defense of the practice which agrees that any sentient being with a framework for integratiing the experience into his personality would be a setrious risk for post traumatic type stress, but we take refuge in the confusionthat we suppose must attend the first week on earth.
Ah, someone called Smeghead comments on circumcision
I thought I might need a quick chop in my early twenties because it felt a little tight down there, but for some reason during the act of coitus my foreskin suddenly loosens and (further research has discovered) the feeling of it pulling back adds quite a lot to sex and general bedtime tom-foolery
Besides all that, I can keep my downstairs perfectly clean without the need for surgery. To me using a cleanliness excuse is sort of like insisting on having an airbag in your car so you can drive around without wearing a seatbelt.
Yeah, yeah, sure. Whatever. You feel one way, I feel…well, I personally don’t really care one way or the other. Don’t like circumcision? Don’t have one. and don’t have your kid cut, either. End of story as far as I’m concerned.
My entry iinto this was based on your earlier post, where you implied that circumcision at a hospital was marginally better than the traditional bris because the former uses anesthesia, while the latter does not. This is simply.not.true. I offered a few links and a devilishly clever search paradigm to help you avoid pulling stuff from your moist, dark nether regions. Rather than trouble yourself to learn something, you simply dismissed it based on the name of the web site, and ignored the article from the British Medical Journal which were at odds with your vast knowledge of the subject. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but sometimes they’re too stubborn to drink.
Dont have one??? Like baby boys get to choose! That’s the problem isnt it? Infants being subjected to an unnecessary and potentially dangerous operation to satisfy a parent’s whim.
As if its not abundantly clear by now I have no intention of subjecting any children I have to this barbarous ritual. I dont have the right to do that to any child of mine. I am not entitled to have bits chopped off them. They have the right to make that decision themselves when they come of age should they so choose.
And parents that support circumcision, well they dont have that right either. Children are not property.
Saying “Dont like it? Dont have one” is just silly given the lack of choice involved. Its as silly as saying “Dont like murder? Well dont get murdered then. Oh, yeah dont murder others either if you dont like it”
Yep this is where we part ways. Muslims dont have the right to circumcise baby girls, we dont have the right to circumcise baby boys. If you think that’s crazy I feel sorry for you but sorrier for your children.
Interesting subject (well, at least mildly). First time I came across it was when I saw a study on tv asking women if they had had sex with men both circumcized and uncircumsized, and if so, what they preferred. A clear majority said they preferred uncircumsized because you feel more. In fact, I only remember those preferring uncircumsized do so because of an ick-factor, and for that reason mostly belonged to the camp that never tried both.
Personally, I see advantages and disadvantages, in terms of feeling. Having that bit of extra skin to play with certainly does help with a number of things that many people don’t think of. Many of those are very TMI, but having two instead of one way of whacking off is an obvious example.
However, let’s first look at some of the previous arguments we’ve seen.
Not a very good research group. One of the ‘satisfied customers’ had medical problems. The other claims to be more sensitive, but would only be so because the procedure didn’t take place when he was 7 days old. Also, in the light of the not-satisfied customers, you could assume that this effect wears off and then some.
Still, even if marginally so, this point would count against circumcision. $102 bucks wasted, times 75.000.000 (assuming roughly half of the U.S. men now have one).
So it definitely was introduced for the wrong reasons.
In the light of the reasons for which it was introduced, I’d say rightly so. They are after all the exact same reason for the admittedly more serious femal genital mutilation practice we object against so much in Africa.
No numbers given here, so we can’t really quantify this factor. But a common complaint suggests something probably more common than, say, penile cancer.
I would, as others, be very interested in why exactly the U.S. is so different on this subject. It reminds me a little of a similar case in Sweden with women and the pill. There had been a scare in the eighties that the pill would cause breast cancer, after which many stopped taking the pill. This took place in most countries, but after that scare was debunked, the women in most countries started taking the pill again. But not, for some reason, in Sweden. I wonder if there is a similar reason in the U.S. I don’t believe it is U.S. conservatism towards sex, because in that case I can’t explain the difference with the U.K., which has as far as I know always been at least as prudish as the U.S. (or am I wrong?)
Again it would be interesting to see with what, if anything, this is correlated. Obviously the doctors stance on this matter seems to be of considerable influence, witnessing how effective Australian doctors have been at discouraging the practice.
But that did not mean the AAP concluded that all newborns should be circumcised, just the ones with problems. There current stance is that they cannot recommend the procedure to be applied to all newborns: http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm.
So I find I fully agree with the Australian review, which being from 2002 is one of the most up-to-date ones out there:
Until proven otherwise, I’m backing that. I already assumed that if a child has a chronic infection problem, circumcision is still an option, after all, and a lot of the research ‘favoring’ circumcision for purely medical reasons (rather than increase or decrease in sexual pleasure in men or women) makes a strict distinction between the two. If corrective circumcision took place, the data was either dropped or counted under circumcision.
My two eurocents worth of contribution towards uncovering the SD on this subject. Regardless of complaints that the topic resurfaces yearly, apparently it is still a hot topic in the states, and Cecil’s comments are clearly too much out of date to be the definitive straight dope.
