What's your opinion on circumcision?

[catsix]

Magiver said:
It looks pretty much the same as the uncircumcised erect penis. Looking at the same site I would say the difference is in the flacid state.

Except that’s flaccid, and the scar looks, well, bad.

People who’ve had it done (by their parents) don’t see it as mutiliation nor do the women who date them. Us mutants seem pretty happy with it. If I thought it looked mutilated, or if I thought women didn’t like it then I might think differently.

I live in the US, so most of the guys I date are scarred. I don’t really like it, but what am I gonna do? Tell them?

Maybe you have been dating women who don’t really like cut dicks, but they see no point in telling you that and, like me, find it nearly impossible to find uncut dicks in the US.

You see some where they cut off a lot of skin, or they cut it off unevenly, and the guy’s dick is curved to one side. I’ve seen some pretty serious scars too that looked worse than just ‘discoloration’. They’re just not as appealing at all as the ones that haven’t been mutilated.

[Sevastopol]

Interesting to see how circumcision brings with it the obligation to indoctrinate the little tucker into his parents’ neurotic ways. I mean, really come on. Actually, entertaining. Pray continue.

And circumcisions for health reasons? There is no other surgical procedure occurring in response to anything like the miniscule risk of penile cancer. Yet people go on and on about the medical benefit. Just face it people. Your parents fucked up. It might not be be the lack of lovingkindness. Or a culture that degrades you to livestock. Don’t feel too bad, they could just have been duped. Look around, it’s happening a lot.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=catsix]
Circumcision is nothing more than a word for amputation of the foreskin.
[/quote]
Right, and “trimming” is nothing more than a word for amputation of part of your toes. As I mentioned, the exaggerations hurt your case.

Regards,
Shodan

[spazurek]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
levdrakon, the “Nacirema” example is used with regularity in anthropology classes to put students on notice of their cultural biases. It is easy to dismiss the rituals of an other’s culture as “primitive” and “barbaric.” It is hard to see that that which you acccept is no less bizzare if seen through another’s eyes. Posters here have been quick to disrespect the religious and cultural signicance of circumcision among Jews. They have not only been ignorant of its meaning, they have been willfully ignorant of it. Much more satisfying to sit in smug judgement of the other.
[/QUOTE]

Guess what? If children were subjected to those practices within the jurisdiction of the US or Europe, the practicioners would be arrested, and rightly so. In this society, we hold certain rights to be transcendant above cultural tradition, and one of those is bodily integrity. And you’re right, I couldn’t care less about the cultural significance of this barbaric practice to the Jews, any more than I care to understand theological basis for the historic oppression of Jews. It’s all twisted and wrong.

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Other posters have posited an absolute right to bodily integrity. If such a positiion is held then one really should be consistent in its application. Braces are a clear example of violation of that principle. I am merely wondering if supporters of that absolute right are consistent in their application of use. Inconsistency here would be ridiculous indeed.
[/QUOTE]

If braces were placed against a child’s objection (yes, a child of 12 can consent to something like this) and for purely cosmetic reasons (which is NOT the case – crooked teeth lead to serious health consequences in the mouth, as has been outlined above), then yes, it would be forbidden.

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Me? I am consistent. Parents make decisions on behalf of their children and often over their childen’s objections. They are given fairly wide but not absolute leeway in making those decisions. We limit that ability of parents to decide on their children’s behalves only when the evidence of harm is signicant and with even greater reluctance when religious issues are involved. I respect parents’ rights to come to conclusions other than those that I come to.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know where you get this idea of a parent having such power over their child. Parents in this society actually have remarkably little freedom to infringe on their children’s rights, especially their bodies. If a person of authority (doctor, teacher) has the slightest suspicion of abuse they are REQUIRED to initiate an inquest, often with temporary removal of the child from the parent’s care. We can argue about whether that pendulum has swung too far, but the fact is, we don’t let parents use their childrens’ bodies to suit their own whims – except in the case of circumcision.

As for consistency, I think my rule is pretty easy to follow: no violation of the kid’s body (i.e., permanent alteration of any kind) unless medical considerations give clear support for doing so. Simple!

[Jophiel]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
What you said was, “it played a major role in my own decision.”

I don’t understand your point about not being “rah, rah!” for circumcision. You do advocate for it, at least neonatally.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand which part of “my own decision” was confusing to you. I don’t think I’ve ever offered my opinion on circumcision outside of a “Circumcision is evil” style thread or to my own family when directly discussing my child. I wouldn’t dream of giving my unsolicited opinion to expectant parents as to whether or not they should have their child undergo elective surgery.

But I’m not sure exactly what point you’re trying to make here. Is this some heavy-handed attempt to box me in?
[QUOTE=catsix]
Please don’t tell me what ‘American women’ find appealing, as I am one and can speak for myself, thank you very much.
[/QUOTE]
Deal. Please don’t tell me if I’ve been “multilated” or “lost sensual pleasure” or whatever else. I’m a male and can speak for myself in those regards. Thank you very much.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Your kid would have a far greater chance of drowning in a swimming pool or dying in a bicycle accident than ever even getting penile cancer.
[/quote]
Good point. I’ll file that under “More kids drown in swimming pools than die from guns”. Or what about those cars, huh? They’re pretty deadly. Probably kill more kids than swimming pools do.

@catsix

Using condoms and not being promiscuous means it doesn’t matter whether you’re circumcised or not.

Being circumcised means you’re still at greater protection if the condom fails, you make a stupid error in judgement or you go beyond Catsix’s sexual partner cap and strike the “promiscuous” label.

Barring someone actually adding new data to this thread, I’ll bow out from here. There’s only so many tortured comparisons and so much circular logic I can take before it occurs to me that nothing new is going to be said.

[Antinor01]

[QUOTE=Jophiel]
Barring someone actually adding new data to this thread, I’ll bow out from here. There’s only so many tortured comparisons and so much circular logic I can take before it occurs to me that nothing new is going to be said.
[/QUOTE]

I’m beginning to feel the same way. People attempting to convince me that I’m a mutilated freak whos parents don’t love me is really getting old.

[levdrakon]

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
I’m beginning to feel the same way. People attempting to convince me that I’m a mutilated freak whos parents don’t love me is really getting old.
[/QUOTE]
Well that’s an illuminating way of characterizing the debate. It helps me understand the emotional resistance circumcised and pro-circumcision people have to the simple suggestion they consider not circumcising their children.

Would it help at all if we said your parents loved you just fine but didn’t know any better at the time? People used to smoke cigarettes because at the time they were told they were good for you, or at least not harmful. Times can change.

I realize though, when we’re talking about penises it’s difficult to think about it unemotionally.

[Antinor01]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Well that’s an illuminating way of characterizing the debate. It helps me understand the emotional resistance circumcised and pro-circumcision people have to the simple suggestion they consider not circumcising their children.

Would it help at all if we said your parents loved you just fine but didn’t know any better at the time? People used to smoke cigarettes because at the time they were told they were good for you, or at least not harmful. Times can change.

I realize though, when we’re talking about penises it’s difficult to think about it unemotionally.
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t been emotional about this in the slightest. I don’t have children so it isn’t an issue for me. The fact is I don’t care that my mom had it done since I have had no problems from it and have not been harmed.

And you’re right, I couldn’t care less about the cultural significance of this barbaric practice to the Jews, any more than I care to understand theological basis for the historic oppression of Jews. It’s all twisted and wrong.

Interesting to see how circumcision brings with it the obligation to indoctrinate the little tucker into his parents’ neurotic ways. I mean, really come on. Actually, entertaining. Pray continue.

But you should go to jail for doing it to another person without an immediate need for which circumcision is the only possible remedy, or the fully informed consent of the person being circumcised.

Just a few bits from the last page of this thread, hardly simply suggestions to consider not circumcising your child.

[levdrakon]

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
Just a few bits from the last page of this thread, hardly simply suggestions to consider not circumcising your child.
[/QUOTE]
Nice try. You and Jophiel ignore the rational explanations why circumcision isn’t necessary then cry “they’re calling me a mutilated freak and my parents didn’t love me!”

Just admit you want to circumcise your (theoretical in your case) boys simply because mommy and daddy did it to you and shucks, chicks and gay dudes dig it. At least that’s what you’ve heard.

[Antinor01]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Nice try. You and Jophiel ignore the rational explanations why circumcision isn’t necessary then cry “they’re calling me a mutilated freak and my parents didn’t love me!”

Just admit you want to circumcise your (theoretical in your case) boys simply because mommy and daddy did it to you and shucks, chicks and gay dudes dig it. At least that’s what you’ve heard.
[/QUOTE]

see my posts #196 and #197 where I already stated what I would in the case of my hypothetical children.

[levdrakon]

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
I don’t see that it does them any harm, so why not.
[/QUOTE]
That’s what’s so frustrating about you and Jophiel. No matter what we say you’ll always come back and say “I just don’t get it. Where’s the harm?” We give you reason after reason and we could even link you to pictures of botched circumcisions and you’d ignore it and respond “I just don’t get it. Where’s the harm?”

It’s pointless with both you and Jophiel. You have your thumbs stuck in your ears and the rest of your hand covering your eyes and your answer will always be “where’s the harm?”

If I were to rhetorically compare your “where’s the harm?” deflection with female genital mutilation aka female circumcision you’d dismiss it as “not fair, can’t compare!”

I’m pretty much done here. Not much else I can say.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Of course I am. By the absolute rights espoused here braces are even worse. Kids often express their desire to not have them and yet they are still placed.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say “even worse”, but if the kid objects then they are wrong. But my point was that the two cases are hardly parallel - a days-old infant versus a kid of what, 8 or 9 for braces? Plus braces don’t involve the permanent removal of the teeth.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I wouldn’t say “even worse”, but if the kid objects then they are wrong. But my point was that the two cases are hardly parallel - a days-old infant versus a kid of what, 8 or 9 for braces? Plus braces don’t involve the permanent removal of the teeth.
[/QUOTE]
I had 4 permanent teeth (not wisdom teeth) removed before my braces were put on (I was maybe 10-11 years old), and I don’t recall anyone asking my opinion about it.

[Septima]

[QUOTE=Patty O’Furniture]
I wonder if foreskin appeal is more of a fetishism like the way some people lust after latex or get excited over body piercings.
[/QUOTE]

This is a really weird statement. It’s like hearing someone who prefers partners with pierced genitals wondering aloud if maybe people who like unpierced genitals have some sort of fetish…

[DSeid]

[QUOTE=spazurek]
Guess what? [referring to the described practices of the Nacirema] If children were subjected to those practices within the jurisdiction of the US or Europe, the practicioners would be arrested, and rightly so. In this society, we hold certain rights to be transcendant above cultural tradition, and one of those is bodily integrity. And you’re right, I couldn’t care less about the cultural significance of this barbaric practice to the Jews, any more than I care to understand theological basis for the historic oppression of Jews. It’s all twisted and wrong.
[/quote]
Even after MrDibble made it explicit and despite my original link that explained it, you still don’t get that Nacirema is just “American” backwards and that those tribal practices are just routine orthodonture? No, orthodontists are not routinely arrested for practicing on children. Yes, your willful ignorance and imperialistic smugness is well established.

If braces were placed against a child’s objection (yes, a child of 12 can consent to something like this) and for purely cosmetic reasons (which is NOT the case – crooked teeth lead to serious health consequences in the mouth, as has been outlined above), then yes, it would be forbidden.

Again, there are no serious health consequences being treated or prevented by the bulk of orthodonture in this country. It is cosmetic procedure and kids are generally not asked for informed consent. And MrD, Sarafeena’s experience is typical and many others also have teeth removed as part of the process. With or or without extractions there are permanent changes made to the structure of the body. And why is 8 or 9 less significant than newborn to the issue of bodily integrity?

I don’t know where you get this idea of a parent having such power over their child. Parents in this society actually have remarkably little freedom to infringe on their children’s rights, especially their bodies. If a person of authority (doctor, teacher) has the slightest suspicion of abuse they are REQUIRED to initiate an inquest, often with temporary removal of the child from the parent’s care. We can argue about whether that pendulum has swung too far, but the fact is, we don’t let parents use their childrens’ bodies to suit their own whims – except in the case of circumcision.

Oh maybe from my 19 years in pediatric practice, 21 years as a father, and paying close attention to child welfare issues. I know what my obligations are as a mandated reporter. But what is defined as abuse is not just any decision that you do not like. Parents can and do make many decisions for their children. Parents can decide to school their children at home and teach them creationism or to have no exposure to religion at all. They can impose a wide variety of dietary retrictions: vegan, kosher, halal, no sugar, all organic. They can make them eat their Brussel sprouts. They can allow them to eat all kinds of junk. They can let them never do their homework and watch TV all day. They decide where the child lives and who they can play with and when they can go out and often what they can read or watch. They can force them to labour for no pay and under threat of punishment, mowing the lawn in 100 degree weather or shovelling in subzero weather. Against their will. They can even restrict freedom of expression, forcing them to say “Thank you” and “Please” against their will and censoring their speech when they swear at an adult. They can, for religious reasons, opt out of immunizations and place their child at risk for vaccine preventable diseases. The state only interfers when it is clear that there is significant harm to the child and as the last example illlustrates, gives extra wide berth to religious considerations.

Back to specific subject. I must admit I never expected or desired my member to win a beauty contest. This whole “attractiveness” bit is beyond me, but to each their own. Catsix’s logic does make me smile. More skin must be better. It follows that big breasts are automatically going to give women more sexual pleasure than small ones since they have more skin and that men not so well endowed automatically have less sexual pleasure than well endowed males. Silly, and again, not in keeping with the evidence. But that doesn’t stop a preordained conclusion from being reached.

[DSeid]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
That’s what’s so frustrating about you and Jophiel. No matter what we say you’ll always come back and say “I just don’t get it. Where’s the harm?” We give you reason after reason and we could even link you to pictures of botched circumcisions and you’d ignore it and respond “I just don’t get it. Where’s the harm?”

It’s pointless with both you and Jophiel. You have your thumbs stuck in your ears and the rest of your hand covering your eyes and your answer will always be “where’s the harm?”

If I were to rhetorically compare your “where’s the harm?” deflection with female genital mutilation aka female circumcision you’d dismiss it as “not fair, can’t compare!”

I’m pretty much done here. Not much else I can say.
[/QUOTE]
The frustration is that you want to ignore the actual data: with male circumcision there is indeed a small but real risk of harm and a small but real medical benefit and they basically are too close to reliably call. A pigmented ring is hardly a mutilated scar. The only evidence of difference in sexual function favors the circ’ed males, but that is weak evidence likely explained by cultural selection bias. In even case like that a parent needs to decide for the child which way to go. Either choice is within the range of reasonability. And it is not absurd for cultural norms to influence that choice. Again I’d encourage parents to skip the circ unless they have a sociologic reason to so (such as a religious edict), the medical arguments being fairly unimpressive even if non-zero, but I respect either choice that they make.

[DSeid]

Oh more on the role of parent’s in making decisions for their children:here

Making decisions for children is part of everyday orthodontic care. When conflicts arise between providers and parents, articulation of the ethical and legal principles guiding the process can be helpful. Parents are generally decision makers for their minor children, a presumption supported for practical and moral reasons and by legal precedent. The best interests of the child must guide both parents and providers.

[catsix]

DSeid said:
Catsix’s logic does make me smile. More skin must be better. It follows that big breasts are automatically going to give women more sexual pleasure than small ones since they have more skin and that men not so well endowed automatically have less sexual pleasure than well endowed males.

You really should stop deliberately misstating my arguments. I didn’t say ‘more skin is better’. I said the foreskin is an erogenous organ, which is true. It does have in it a high number of nerve endings that are tied to sexual pleasure.

It’s not the same as breasts in that regard.

Not that I think this matters to you or any other pro-MGM in this thread. You’ve all been unwilling to even listen to the arguments against and only respond to them by calling people who don’t agree with the practice obsessive fetishists. I guess you all don’t need a reason to chop up dicks, the fact that they exist is enough for you.

Sad, really.

[spazurek]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Even after MrDibble made it explicit and despite my original link that explained it, you still don’t get that Nacirema is just “American” backwards and that those tribal practices are just routine orthodonture? No, orthodontists are not routinely arrested for practicing on children. Yes, your willful ignorance and imperialistic smugness is well established.
[/QUOTE]

Wow, you got me, nice job in your deceit. If a child vocally protests against orthodontics, it shouldn’t be done, and wouldn’t be.

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Again, there are no serious health consequences being treated or prevented by the bulk of orthodonture in this country.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a subjective evaluation of seriousness, precisely the kind you object to. Try this or this if you like. (How the hell did this turn into a debate about braces anyway??)

[QUOTE=DSeid]
And why is 8 or 9 less significant than newborn to the issue of bodily integrity?
[/QUOTE]

Are you asking how the decision-making capacity of an 8- or 9-year-old differs from that of a newborn??

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Oh maybe from my 19 years in pediatric practice, 21 years as a father, and paying close attention to child welfare issues. I know what my obligations are as a mandated reporter. But what is defined as abuse is not just any decision that you do not like. Parents can and do make many decisions for their children. Parents can decide to school their children at home and teach them creationism or to have no exposure to religion at all. They can impose a wide variety of dietary retrictions: vegan, kosher, halal, no sugar, all organic. They can make them eat their Brussel sprouts. They can allow them to eat all kinds of junk. They can let them never do their homework and watch TV all day. They decide where the child lives and who they can play with and when they can go out and often what they can read or watch. They can force them to labour for no pay and under threat of punishment, mowing the lawn in 100 degree weather or shovelling in subzero weather. Against their will. They can even restrict freedom of expression, forcing them to say “Thank you” and “Please” against their will and censoring their speech when they swear at an adult. They can, for religious reasons, opt out of immunizations and place their child at risk for vaccine preventable diseases. The state only interfers when it is clear that there is significant harm to the child and as the last example illlustrates, gives extra wide berth to religious considerations.
[/QUOTE]

I must have missed it – where was ‘intentionally mutilating your child’ on the list of allowed parental authority?

[DSeid]

Catsix try actually reading. My position that “I’d encourage parents to skip the circ unless they have a sociologic reason to so (such as a religious edict), the medical arguments being fairly unimpressive even if non-zero, but I respect either choice that they make.” is hardly “calling people who don’t agree with the practice obsessive fetishists.”

spazurek, “deceit”? Well the original post was made explicitly saying tht one should be careful about judging what seems bizzare in an other and included a link to learn more about this tribe and its practices, a link that explained how this story is used in classes to teach about the dangers of judging other cultures’ practices too quickly. Most people quickly realize what is being described. I guess those who want to sit in imperialistic judgement can’t be expected to even click once to find out more before they judge.

As to braces, oh yes, your cite that says

A smile filled with beautifully aligned pearly whites will make a better impression than one that is poorly aligned. Children can be quite cruel to the child with bucked or severely crowded teeth. These comments can have a lasting effect on that child’s self-esteem. Fortunately, treatment is available to correct most of these problems of poorly aligned teeth known as orthodontics.

and another that documents that years of braces and living through the extra dental hygiene required to care for braces will result in an adult who brushes better, those definitely make the point that these body altering painful interventions performed on children are done for the substantial medical benefits. Uh huh. BTW, I think parents should be in charge of making a decision like braces. An older child’s assent (different than consent and possible even with objections) is desirable however even if it is not their choice.

Finally, the Nacirema example (and many posts in this thread) should have already taught you that “mutilation” and “beauty” are culturally relative terms. A pluralistic society applies its judgement of which is which upon its component groups with caution. That same pluralistic society treats the religious and cultural values of its component groups with respect.