Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Regulating Circumcision Options · View
PhareDuFour
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:58:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:
There are a few different arguments here, all getting thrown into the same thread. One is female circumcision, which is described is barbaric and torturous, of course.


Originally the German government proposed legislation to prevent ANY KIND of genital surgery on children, because while Jews, Christians and Muslims argue that male circumcision is okay, good, and acceptable, and must be tolerated because of their religious views, the Africans become very upset because their religious rights are being violated when people outside their religion call their clitoralsectomy practices "barbaric".

That's the sticky part, you see? How can they stay fair, and say a circumcision is fair, but clitorsectomy is barbaric?

It's not that they originally wanted to prevent elective surgery on genitals all together - they just want to protect the rights of children, who are unable to make their own decisions. For the same reason, they do not allow parents to drag their kids into tattoo studios to get piercings or tatoos their parents might think are "cool".

Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:05:49 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
The Nazi party may be illegal but that doesn't stop large amounts of Germans from walking around sporting swastika tattoos. Yes I have seen them several times for myself.

Clitoral mutilation removes an important sexual organ from the female in order to prevent her from enjoying sex when she reaches adulthood. Circumcision removes a piece of unnecessary skin from the penis that greatly enhances cleanliness and good hygiene and in no way effects sexual stimulation in adulthood. It is commonly practiced in North America while having nothing to do with religion. Athiests, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Agnostics and many others have their male babies circumcised here.

I am curious why the German government would want to inhibit the rights of their citizenry and oppress those who do have religious beliefs.

LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:10:46 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
PhareDuFour wrote:


Originally the German government proposed legislation to prevent ANY KIND of genital surgery on children, because while Jews, Christians and Muslims argue that male circumcision is okay, good, and acceptable, and must be tolerated because of their religious views, the Africans become very upset because their religious rights are being violated when people outside their religion call their clitoralsectomy practices "barbaric".

That's the sticky part, you see? How can they stay fair, and say a circumcision is fair, but clitorsectomy is barbaric?

It's not that they originally wanted to prevent elective surgery on genitals all together - they just want to protect the rights of children, who are unable to make their own decisions. For the same reason, they do not allow parents to drag their kids into tattoo studios to get piercings or tatoos their parents might think are "cool".


I suppose. I get the whole "but, infants have no say, and isn't it sort of barbaric?" point, and in a vacuum, I can see it that way. However, we don't live in a vacuum. Whatever government decides it has to equate male circumcision and female clitoralsectomy in the name of 'fairness' has lost their way. Male circumcision doesn't hinder any function whatsoever, while also offering health advantages to men. The argument that says a male circumcision amounts to mangling of the body (just as female 'circumcision clearly is that) is guilty of more than a bit of melodrama.

But, it's all a matter of perpective, so some will call male circumcision barbaric if they wish, and I'll agree to disagree. In the event that I have another male child someday, I'll be asking a surgeon to perform the same insurance-covered barbarism as my first child had.

PhareDuFour
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:22:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
Buz wrote:
The Nazi party may be illegal but that doesn't stop large amounts of Germans from walking around sporting swastika tattoos. Yes I have seen them several times for myself.


Large amounts of Germans? Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

If you read German I can give you a link to a couple guys who were put in jail in 2010 for 6 months without parole and fined, and ordered by a court of law to have their tattoos with Swastikas removed from their bodies at their expense.

It's illegal to display the Swastika in public in the Federal Republic of Germany. The exception is for articles such as books which were printed before 1949, and films, theatre pieces or other re-enactments which portray accuarte history and do not glorify the Third Reich in any way.

You may have seen a couple people who had them, but it doesn't mean that it's allowed, welcome or generally accepted - and certainly not appreciated by the majority of the population. It's tantamount to sporting a "I support Al Quaida" tattoo in Washington D.C.

Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
PhareDuFour
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:34:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
Buz wrote:
I am curious why the German government would want to inhibit the rights of their citizenry [SIC] and oppress those who do have religious beliefs.


They originally wanted to protect the rights of children, regardless of their parents' religious beliefs, in the interest of Human Rights.

The first "ammendment" of the German Constitution reads, "The dignity of humans shall remain untouchable."

Religious freedom comes after that, not before it. In that sense, they are not forbiding religious freedom, but protecting the rights of children who cannot exercise their rights until they are adults - at which point they can have circumcisions or their clitorus removed if they so wish.

The original problem was: How do you prevent little girls from having their clits chopped off because their parents believe this makes God happy?

If they make that illegal and label it barbaric, then the parents take it to the Supreme Court in Germany, and say, "Hey! How come the Muslims get to chop off foreskins to make God happy, but you won't let us chop of clits to make God happy? That's not fair! You are violating our religious rights!"




Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:09:45 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
PhareDuFour wrote:


They originally wanted to protect the rights of children, regardless of their parents' religious beliefs, in the interest of Human Rights.

The first "ammendment" of the German Constitution reads, "The dignity of humans shall remain untouchable."

Religious freedom comes after that, not before it. In that sense, they are not forbiding religious freedom, but protecting the rights of children who cannot exercise their rights until they are adults - at which point they can have circumcisions or their clitorus removed if they so wish.

The original problem was: How do you prevent little girls from having their clits chopped off because their parents believe this makes God happy?

If they make that illegal and label it barbaric, then the parents take it to the Supreme Court in Germany, and say, "Hey! How come the Muslims get to chop off foreskins to make God happy, but you won't let us chop of clits to make God happy? That's not fair! You are violating our religious rights!"




Well PhareDuFour I don't see how properly circumcising an infant boy in any way deprives anyone of dignity or human rights. In fact I believe it enhances one's quality of life. As I stated it is a common practice throughout North America. I also believe that religious freedom is an integral and inalienable part of human rights and dignity, but then again I am a direct descendant of the Americans that fought against the British Empire for our freedom (which includes religious freedom) liberty and independence. Those beliefs I hold dear.

I don't see the circumcision of boys and the clitoral mutilation of girls as having anything similar or to do with one another. I see them as being very different.

I am very glad that the German government takes a hard stance against Nazism. Both of my grandfathers fought against the Nazis in WWII. I know that the majority of Germans were not Nazis but were held under their grasp. I have seen many youth sporting swastikas though on their upper arms. Maybe they cover them up when they see the police. It really took me aback the first time I encountered that. To be truthful their manner of dress did not lend me to the conclusion that they were among Germany's finest citizens.

I have seen swastika tattoos here in the states. It almost always means that the wearer has been to prison and is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, a very dangerous group usually involved in organized crime.

overmykneenow
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:57:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,023
Location: United Kingdom
Buz wrote:


Well PhareDuFour I don't see how properly circumcising an infant boy in any way deprives anyone of dignity or human rights. In fact I believe it enhances one's quality of life. As I stated it is a common practice throughout North America. I also believe that religious freedom is an integral and inalienable part of human rights and dignity, but then again I am a direct descendant of the Americans that fought against the British Empire for our freedom (which includes religious freedom) liberty and independence. Those beliefs I hold dear.

I don't see the circumcision of boys and the clitoral mutilation of girls as having anything similar or to do with one another. I see them as being very different.

I am very glad that the German government takes a hard stance against Nazism. Both of my grandfathers fought against the Nazis in WWII. I know that the majority of Germans were not Nazis but were held under their grasp. I have seen many youth sporting swastikas though on their upper arms. Maybe they cover them up when they see the police. It really took me aback the first time I encountered that. To be truthful their manner of dress did not lend me to the conclusion that they were among Germany's finest citizens.

I have seen swastika tattoos here in the states. It almost always means that the wearer has been to prison and is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, a very dangerous group usually involved in organized crime.


I thought your original post was just ignorant but now I see it's backed up with a dash bigotry and a sprinkling of self-righteousness

What an objectionable, small-minded person you must be, but then I guess you do come from a state that had its own version apartheid in operation for about 20 years AFTER the nazis were defeated. Yes I'm sure your forefathers fought very bravely for freedom - freedom for white people that is.

The vast majority of Germans should be rightly outraged at your alarmingly narrow world view. Swastika tattoos are worn by idiots across the globe - here's one i found earlier....



I can't decide whether you're just stupid, obnoxious or shockingly unaware. I think it's a sad dangerous mix of all three.

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:22:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
PhareDuFour wrote:


Curious how you find clitoral removal is barbaric, but removal of the foreskin is acceptable. The point they were trying to make is that:

NO ONE asked you if you wanted it.
No is asking young girls if they want to have their clitorus removed either.
Just because it doesn't hurt you today, and you have grown up with it, don't you think you would like to have had the choice?
What if your parents had elected not to have you circumcised? Would you still be in favour of having one now? Or would you find it perhaps barbaric?


PhareDuFour wrote:


Originally the German government proposed legislation to prevent ANY KIND of genital surgery on children, because while Jews, Christians and Muslims argue that male circumcision is okay, good, and acceptable, and must be tolerated because of their religious views, the Africans become very upset because their religious rights are being violated when people outside their religion call their clitoralsectomy practices "barbaric".

That's the sticky part, you see? How can they stay fair, and say a circumcision is fair, but clitorsectomy is barbaric?

It's not that they originally wanted to prevent elective surgery on genitals all together - they just want to protect the rights of children, who are unable to make their own decisions. For the same reason, they do not allow parents to drag their kids into tattoo studios to get piercings or tatoos their parents might think are "cool".


Curious that you see clitoral removal and foreskin removal as an equal comparison. Removal of foreskin has no lifelong effects, the penis still functions normally and there is not permanent disfiguring scarring or loss of use/sensation/purpose. A lifetime of sexual activity remains mostly the same, cut or uncut. Clitoral removal causes permanent scarring, loss of function, decrease sexual pleasure, and shame. Sexual pleasure is permanently lost. They can't be lumped together as equal surgeries.

I think this is a not-so veiled attack on religious beliefs on your part, correct me if I'm wrong. If you are opposed to the religion that is your choice, but mock outrage at something that is common and accepted and beneficial healthwise based strictly because it comes from religion, is misguided. If you don't want to have your son circumcised, that is your choice to make.

Until people start lopping off foreskins of old-enough-to-be-aware boys, in back rooms with rusty knives while his fathers and uncles hold him down and cover his screaming mouth, I'm okay with circumcision. Maybe we should ban tonsilectomies and ear tubes on babies too, since they have no choice in the matter.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
ByronLord
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:23:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 753
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Buz wrote:
Look at the credibility of Germany. And I am not talking about their Nazi past. But just maybe it fits. They now want to ban circumcision but they just recently decided to attempt to outlaw bestiality. Yes, bestiality has been legal in Germany for sometime. They already are getting major protests to keep bestiality legal.

Now I am talking about their Nazi past. Do you think there might be some connection between Germans wanting to outlaw circumcision and the fact that it was practiced by a group of people they tried to exterminate from the earth? Just tossing that out there.


You need to stop watching Faux News before your brain turns to mush.

Bestiality was illegal in Germany until they passed a bunch of bills to reduce the amount of dead legislation and accidentally eliminated the ban on bestiality. Same thing happened in Rhode Island when they accidentally made prostitution legal a while back.

The issue only came up when a clever defense lawyer worked it out.

The proposal for a ban really isn't being driven by anti-semitism as they had an EXCEPTION. Bet the liars at Fox News didn't mention that when they 'reported' on it.

Seriously, if Fox News is telling you something that sounds stupid that is probably because it is untrue and made up for the sole purpose of getting gullible rubes to watch adverts telling them to 'invest' in a gold coin scam.

elitfromnorth
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:46:38 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
lafayettemister wrote:


Curious that you see clitoral removal and foreskin removal as an equal comparison. Removal of foreskin has no lifelong effects, the penis still functions normally and there is not permanent disfiguring scarring or loss of use/sensation/purpose. A lifetime of sexual activity remains mostly the same, cut or uncut. Clitoral removal causes permanent scarring, loss of function, decrease sexual pleasure, and shame. Sexual pleasure is permanently lost. They can't be lumped together as equal surgeries.

I think this is a not-so veiled attack on religious beliefs on your part, correct me if I'm wrong. If you are opposed to the religion that is your choice, but mock outrage at something that is common and accepted and beneficial healthwise based strictly because it comes from religion, is misguided. If you don't want to have your son circumcised, that is your choice to make.

Until people start lopping off foreskins of old-enough-to-be-aware boys, in back rooms with rusty knives while his fathers and uncles hold him down and cover his screaming mouth, I'm okay with circumcision. Maybe we should ban tonsilectomies and ear tubes on babies too, since they have no choice in the matter.


Good way of comparing a rather needless procedure(unless you have problem with too tight foreskin) with a procedure used in life threatening situations and a procedure used to prevent a disability. You just killed any legitimacy in your arguments with that statement when you failed to come up with a procedure that's more pointless than shaving your beard.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:02:29 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
ByronLord wrote:


You need to stop watching Faux News before your brain turns to mush.

Bestiality was illegal in Germany until they passed a bunch of bills to reduce the amount of dead legislation and accidentally eliminated the ban on bestiality. Same thing happened in Rhode Island when they accidentally made prostitution legal a while back.

The issue only came up when a clever defense lawyer worked it out.

The proposal for a ban really isn't being driven by anti-semitism as they had an EXCEPTION. Bet the liars at Fox News didn't mention that when they 'reported' on it.

Seriously, if Fox News is telling you something that sounds stupid that is probably because it is untrue and made up for the sole purpose of getting gullible rubes to watch adverts telling them to 'invest' in a gold coin scam.


Oh your Lordship pseudo intellectual Byron! I don't watch Faux news. I do enjoy CNN sometimes. I also don't bow down before your arrogant Narcissistic ego! Strange how you ASSume so much. ASSuming often makes an ass of oneself. I would watch Faux News if they let you have a talk show. It would be the best comedy skit ever!

PS. You seem to be quite the expert on Faux News. But I will not assume that you spend a lot of time there. Let your words speak to that.

Buz
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:51:57 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
overmykneenow wrote:


I thought your original post was just ignorant but now I see it's backed up with a dash bigotry and a sprinkling of self-righteousness

What an objectionable, small-minded person you must be, but then I guess you do come from a state that had its own version apartheid in operation for about 20 years AFTER the nazis were defeated. Yes I'm sure your forefathers fought very bravely for freedom - freedom for white people that is.

The vast majority of Germans should be rightly outraged at your alarmingly narrow world view. Swastika tattoos are worn by idiots across the globe - here's one i found earlier....



I can't decide whether you're just stupid, obnoxious or shockingly unaware. I think it's a sad dangerous mix of all three.


I see your post is served up with a heaping portion of bigotry, self-righteousness and ignorance as well.

Have a nice day!

hankyspanky
Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:45:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/4/2012
Posts: 526
Location: wellington, New Zealand
What do the Lush ladies like the Best???
overmykneenow
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:51:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,023
Location: United Kingdom
Buz wrote:


I see your post is served up with a heaping portion of bigotry, self-righteousness and ignorance as well.

Have a nice day!


Is that all you've got: the "no, you are!" defence?

What my post highlighted was that using YOUR "logic" I should assume that you're a card-carrying member of the KKK based solely on the fact of where you live.

I don't think I know of another culture more willing to face up to the unspeakable horrors of its past than Germany. Unlike Britain and America, who quietly paint their own history as something to be proud of.

Grow up, read some books and stay out of discussions you clearly don't have the mental capacity for.

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Buz
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 5:18:51 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,819
Location: Atlanta, United States
overmykneenow wrote:


Is that all you've got: the "no, you are!" defence?

What my post highlighted was that using YOUR "logic" I should assume that you're a card-carrying member of the KKK based solely on the fact of where you live.

I don't think I know of another culture more willing to face up to the unspeakable horrors of its past than Germany. Unlike Britain and America, who quietly paint their own history as something to be proud of.

Grow up, read some books and stay out of discussions you clearly don't have the mental capacity for.


You obviously need to grow up. You start personal attacks and then act so offended if someone strikes back. You know nothing about me. I come from a long tradition of fighting for equal civil rights. My family was very active in supporting the civil rights movement in the USA. Even further back I had an ancestor who was hung for helping black slaves escape to freedom. I have probably done 10 times as much in the effort to promote equality than you have, having taken an active stance in supporting gay rights an marriage in the city and state in which I live.

You toss around ignorant accusations about someone with which you know nothing about. Yu talk about mental capacity when you show nothing to support your own abilities except baseless innuendo.

In none of my post have I ever supported or promoted nazism. They were a horrible plague on human history.

You should actually learn to read the posts to which you respond.

overmykneenow
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:51:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,023
Location: United Kingdom
Buz wrote:


You obviously need to grow up. You start personal attacks and then act so offended if someone strikes back. You know nothing about me. I come from a long tradition of fighting for equal civil rights. My family was very active in supporting the civil rights movement in the USA. Even further back I had an ancestor who was hung for helping black slaves escape to freedom. I have probably done 10 times as much in the effort to promote equality than you have, having taken an active stance in supporting gay rights an marriage in the city and state in which I live.

You toss around ignorant accusations about someone with which you know nothing about. Yu talk about mental capacity when you show nothing to support your own abilities except baseless innuendo.

In none of my post have I ever supported or promoted nazism. They were a horrible plague on human history.

You should actually learn to read the posts to which you respond.


I do read the posts. I read the words in the right order, carefully not missing any for fear that I might misunderstand the intention of them.

What I wrote was this :

Quote:
What my post highlighted was that using YOUR "logic" I should assume that you're a card-carrying member of the KKK based solely on the fact of where you live.


I'll break this down for you. "YOUR logic" is the logic you've used previously in the discussion to say that because this is happening in Germany it's probably due to the fact that their laws are still anti-Semitic, a fact they you've backed up by your belief that "large amounts of Germans [are] walking around sporting swastika tattoos". So using that that logic should I also assume that you, coming from where you do, are a racist? OF COURSE I FUCKING SHOULDN'T. That was the whole point of the statement. Obviously I need to to spell everything out when dealing with you.

I don't know what parts of Germany you've been to, but I've been to a lot of football stadiums in the country and I must say I've seen no more evidence of Nazi support there than I have in any other part of Europe. I understand that may not be the case in certain parts of Eastern Europe or even the old East Germany but I wouldn't base opinions on the political thinking of young germans on some documentary maker filming in an underground Leipzig skinhead bar. What I can say is that these people certainly aren't shaping policy.

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
SITTING
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:54:28 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 712
Location: Leeds, United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:
So long as it is performed by medical professionals, I believe the parents should have domain over this choice.


I agree. If it's a part of the parents' religion, they should be able to follow that and do what they think is best.
Jack_42
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:52:00 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
No belief should be forced on anyone especially kids. They should be given the choice when they are of an age to make decisions for themselves including any mutilation. We're all born with these bits presumably, (if one is a believer), designed by the deity so why create a body with superfluous parts? As for a personal preference; as a thinking adult would you really let some lunatic near your most treasured possession with a sharp implement? I shudder at the barbaric thought.
SexySophie
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:28:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/10/2012
Posts: 198
Location: United Kingdom



What a load of hot air about a piece of skin. I've had a few guys who were circumcised - but here in UK it's the exception rather than the rule.

From my humble observations a guy who is cut will - possibly coz of the constant friction against his dick - last a lot longer inside me than an uncircumcised man. Basically that's all I'm concerned about.

So what's all the deep seated crap about a childs rights and child mutilation? Many a baby who has been fed with meat products in his/her formative years will become a vegetarian - or even a vegan. Are the parents to be held to blame for that too? Parents make their choices usually because the child is unable to - and if that involves circumcision - then so be it. Never heard of female circumcision but if anyone cut off my clitoris there'd be hell to pay.
Jack_42
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:49:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
SexySofie wrote:



What a load of hot air about a piece of skin. I've had a few guys who were circumcised - but here in UK it's the exception rather than the rule.

From my humble observations a guy who is cut will - possibly coz of the constant friction against his dick - last a lot longer inside me than an uncircumcised man. Basically that's all I'm concerned about.

So what's all the deep seated crap about a childs rights and child mutilation? Many a baby who has been fed with meat products in his/her formative years will become a vegetarian - or even a vegan. Are the parents to be held to blame for that too? Parents make their choices usually because the child is unable to - and if that involves circumcision - then so be it. Never heard of female circumcision but if anyone cut off my clitoris there'd be hell to pay.



I'm surprised that you're so uninformed try watching the movie Desert Flower.

Some parents want to circumcise females and if it was a parental decision what would be the point of paying hell? (Still so be it or is that different - not quite as barbaric if it's male?)
PhareDuFour
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:11:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:


Curious that you see clitoral removal and foreskin removal as an equal comparison. Removal of foreskin has no lifelong effects, the penis still functions normally and there is not permanent disfiguring scarring or loss of use/sensation/purpose. A lifetime of sexual activity remains mostly the same, cut or uncut. Clitoral removal causes permanent scarring, loss of function, decrease sexual pleasure, and shame. Sexual pleasure is permanently lost. They can't be lumped together as equal surgeries.

I think this is a not-so veiled attack on religious beliefs on your part, correct me if I'm wrong. If you are opposed to the religion that is your choice, but mock outrage at something that is common and accepted and beneficial healthwise based strictly because it comes from religion, is misguided. If you don't want to have your son circumcised, that is your choice to make.

Until people start lopping off foreskins of old-enough-to-be-aware boys, in back rooms with rusty knives while his fathers and uncles hold him down and cover his screaming mouth, I'm okay with circumcision. Maybe we should ban tonsilectomies and ear tubes on babies too, since they have no choice in the matter.


Curious that your arguments begin from a secular view then progress to a presumption of attack on religion, and end with a polemic counter-attack.

The legislation proposed was not against circumcision nor clitoralsectomy. I repeat: the legislation was not attempt to prevent elective surgery. It proposed to attack religion. The legislation was proposed to protect children from having to undergo elective surgery at an age when they are not able to express consent.

It's about consent. A clitoralsectomy has not been made illegal, nor has circumcision - for adults.

In fact - sadly - the German government caved into to religious demands that circumcisions can be performed on infant boys. They simply regulated so that it must be performed by doctors and not Rabbis or Imans, and anaesthia is now required.

Naturally the Africans are upset that their religious practices are being slighted while Muslim and Jewish practices are being indulged.

Yes, one can argue that a clitoralsectomy is barbaric, in the sense that a female will probably never know an orgasm, but then again it is their religion to believe that pious women should never enjoy sex. Like you, I don't think that female children should have to endure such a practice. If they desire this as a consenting adult, that's another thing.

But likewise - whether or not it's of no consequence to sexual functionality - male infants are being forced to undergo an elective surgery. They have no choice or say in it. Why would it be so disrespectful to say "If you want a circumcision, then you will have to wait until you're 18"?

And yes, on this level I can compare a clitoralsectomy to circumcision. The are both operations being performed on children without their consent. The argument about sexual functionality is irrelevant. It's about consent - not sexual functionality. It would be no different if you were against infants having tattoos or genital piercings because their parents were heathens, and believed have their children marked for life without the child's consent would make their Gods happy.



Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
PhareDuFour
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:18:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
SexySofie wrote:
So what's all the deep seated crap about a childs rights and child mutilation?


Once again, it's about consent. Not about how a dick functions or about how missing a clit would spell the end of an enjoyable sex life.

I sincerely ask you, where does a secular government draw the line when it comes to the rights of the child versus the religious freedom of parents?

It's pretty cut-and-dried in a secular country. For instance, German hospitals don't respect the religious rights of Jehovah Witnesses and other religions when it comes to blood transfusions on children. You might agree to this being sensible, but I am sure Jehovah Witnesses view it as a grave violation of their religious rights.

Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
PhareDuFour
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:21:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
SITTING wrote:


I agree. If it's a part of the parents' religion, they should be able to follow that and do what they think is best.


And if their parents religion had some deity which demanded their first born be sarcified on an altar, you would still stay with the above statement?

Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
PhareDuFour
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:24:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 10/23/2012
Posts: 57
Location: United Kingdom
overmykneenow wrote:
What I can say is that these people certainly aren't shaping policy.


(down on my knees and kissing your hand in respect, Sir) LOL

Si vos postulo me, sed non vis me, oportet me manere.
Sed si vis me, sed non vos postulo me, oportet me abire.
overmykneenow
Posted: Friday, December 14, 2012 3:36:03 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,023
Location: United Kingdom
SexySofie wrote:

What a load of hot air about a piece of skin. I've had a few guys who were circumcised - but here in UK it's the exception rather than the rule.

From my humble observations a guy who is cut will - possibly coz of the constant friction against his dick - last a lot longer inside me than an uncircumcised man. Basically that's all I'm concerned about.

So what's all the deep seated crap about a childs rights and child mutilation? Many a baby who has been fed with meat products in his/her formative years will become a vegetarian - or even a vegan. Are the parents to be held to blame for that too? Parents make their choices usually because the child is unable to - and if that involves circumcision - then so be it. Never heard of female circumcision but if anyone cut off my clitoris there'd be hell to pay.


Cut cocks last longer because they are less sensitive then uncut cocks as the skin on the glans thickens to protect it resulting in uncut cocks requiring more stimulation. Of course it's difficult to say how much sensation is lost to someone who has had their foreskin removed at such an early age. Some argue that there is no loss at all, others who have had the procedure done as an adult say otherwise

This is quite a good piece looking at both sides of the argument - http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/02/or_not_to_snip.html

I personally don't think it's a good thing to do to baby, but then i don't like seeing babies with pierced ears either.

Would you put a tattoo on a baby?


Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
foxjack
Posted: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:31:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
overmykneenow wrote:


Cut cocks last longer because they are less sensitive then uncut cocks as the skin on the glans thickens to protect it resulting in uncut cocks requiring more stimulation. Of course it's difficult to say how much sensation is lost to someone who has had their foreskin removed at such an early age. Some argue that there is no loss at all, others who have had the procedure done as an adult say otherwise

The cut spot is the second most sensitive spot on my cock (after the head) everything below that doesn't really get me much.

But when I was younger I will admit my head was more sensitive, but I jerked it too much and I destroyed that sensitivity ;p
Dementorkissed
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 2:29:18 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/24/2012
Posts: 174
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:
If not for the religious background, it would never be allowed. Yes, there are studies that show higher instances of diseases in uncircumcised men (and also studies showing that it's more about cleanliness than skin) but if I was going to have my child's toenails removed because that would avoid ingrown nails and other potential infections in the future, people would lock me up for child abuse, and no doctor would perform the procedure. So what makes the male sex organ less worthy of protection than toenails?


very well said!!!!

there is no reason for this barbaric ritual... the religious nuts have given up a lot of their old practices over the ages... this needs to be the next

“When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”
― Helen Keller
RobinFrans
Posted: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:40:25 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 1/10/2014
Posts: 11
LadyX wrote:

But, it's all a matter of perpective, so some will call male circumcision barbaric if they wish, and I'll agree to disagree. In the event that I have another male child someday, I'll be asking a surgeon to perform the same insurance-covered barbarism as my first child had.
I respect that decision. Teenage boys don't have money, but teenage boys do have sex.
Ardentmale
Posted: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:54:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/22/2013
Posts: 4,551
Location: Jersey Shore, United States
I think to compare a medically performed circumcision to the movie Desert Flower is like comparing apples and oranges... She was mutilated using a sharpened rock because of tribal beliefs... quite barbaric... A circumcision performed in a medical facility is quite the opposite... Something you may view as barbaric, but acceptable in modern society...

So in life, to each their own... If it were harmful, I might believe government should step in... But I think government regulates enough in our lives...

characterized by intense feeling; passionate; fervent

Intensely devoted, eager, or enthusiastic; zealous

vehement; fierce burning, fiery, or hot
Meggsy
Posted: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:58:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/23/2013
Posts: 301
Location: Australia
For women - definitely NOT.
I have discussed this with quite a few men and boys during my life regarding their opinion about having been circumcised either by their parents, usually at birth or shortly after, or as some have done at their own volition.
All the guys having it done of their own choice are more than happy they had it done. Most were about 18 or older. All of these say it has improved their sexual pleasure and none say it has degraded it.
Some of the uncircumcised guys would like to have it done but are not game - others love their extra little bit and would never have it done by choice.
From my point of view - I prefer a circumcised guy for foreplay and oral - mainly for hygene. Once its inside it doesnt seem to matter.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.