Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[Bells]

Irrelevant, in replying to me. My sole reference to religion, a tangential one, was in pointing out the more or less obvious bigotries common to German national culture, which would have to be considered - as a matter of course - in evaluating this law.

There are such things as degrees of medical indication - "necessity" of various intensities - and these considerations are common in many relatively uncontroversial medical decisions; including mutilations, such as tonsillectomies and tooth extractions and tongue modifications (Down's Syndrome) where sound medical opinions differ and conflict.

I am not saying that it does not and all carries some weight.

But you and others have been relying on flawed HIV studies as reasons why it should be done, disregarding that parents are mutilating their children purely for religious and cosmetic reasons. Flawed HIV studies in Africa do not apply to cases where parents in the West are having their son's circumcised because of their religious belief or because they think it looks better.

Tooth extractions and tonsillectomies aside, none of those are really for religious reasons but usually when one's tooth is rotten and when one's tonsills cause issues such as constant infections. As for tongue modifications, isn't that usually done to allow for better speech pattern for the child - ie - to allow them to be able to speak clearer and better?

Uh, bells, that link is the third consecutive example you have posted in direct reply to my assertions and requests for more reasonable argumentation, complete with aspersion toward my competence or reasoning or whatever, in which FGM specifically includes cutting out "lips" and part or all of the clitoris. (Further, not neo-natal or hospital done - which makes the whole comparison exactly the sensationalized crapola I've been objecting to)

Uh Iceaura, had you paid attention, you would see that in many parts of the world, just that little snip and sometimes no snip but a squeezing of the clitoral hood classifies as FGM. While circumcision of boys from neonatal to boys reaching their teens for religious reasons is perfectly acceptable?

Even just looking at the Sunna circumcision for girls, it is FGM. No question about it, is there? So why does that standard not apply to Sunna circumcisions for boys?

Why is there a different standard?

Have I been somehow vague about this? Or are you not reading your own links? Or what is the problem?

I believe I have been more than clear. And have provided links for you to read, which you appear to completely disregard.

Instead, you have harped on about flawed African HIV studies and discussed how the foreskin is apparently a cesspit of infection and attempted to use that as an excuse to mutilate young boys for religious reasons.

I'm talking to someone who needs to mind their mouth, when replying to people such as myself who are posting reasonably, without insult, considerately, and - btw - accurately. Take a deep breath, can the aspersions and insults and posturing, deal with the actual posting.

I'm sorry iceaura, but I need to ask again? Who the hell do you think you're speaking to?

All that's missing from your comment is "missy". Could you be more condescending? The last time I heard that term come out of a man's mouth was just before he beat her to a pulp for talking back to him. So I would kindly suggest you take your overtly sexist and condescending manner and shove them up where the sun don't shine.

As for your insults and posturing, you have blatantly ignored and disregarded the men who have posted in this thread who have stated how they felt about their own circumcisions as children. You have also decided to describe all men and boys who aren't circumcised as being somehow infections and dirty. You have also been condescending and insulting to me in the manner in which you have suddenly decided to get all manly and tell me to watch my mouth.

And you dare accuse me of posturing?

See how easy it is to make a reasonable argument, without the wild exaggerations and insults and general bs?

Meanwhile, how do we clear out the smoke from this discussion? Start a new thread on the topic, with the FGM and amputations and religious bigotries and so forth screened out?

I think one thread on this topic is enough. Especially where you are concerned.

 

[Asguard]

Orleander what would you say if your husband said "sorry but if you don't get your boobs enlarged I'm dumping you"?

 

[spidergoat]

bottom line, regardless of religion, circumcision is more beneficial than unnecessary.
while most religious traditions are not well backed up, this one happens to be better for people.

get over it people.

No it isn't! You haven't proved it at all.

 

[Kittamaru]

Many people who have been circumcised later in life report a decreased sensitivity of the glans. Which is logical considering that the previously protected area is now exposed, necessitating that the skin toughen up.

Beside that, why would anyone want a smaller penis? Even just a little bit smaller?

I was circumcised as a newborn... and I'll tell ya this - I wouldn't WANT to be more sensitive... I LIKE the fact that, if my wife and I so desire, I can hold back for upwards of 30-40 minutes while she rides through multiple orgasms... now, granted, we also have awesome foreplay leading up to sex, but if I were any more sensitive I doubt I would be able to control myself for more than a few minutes and, well, guys don't bounce back from orgasm as well as women do...

 

[scifes]

I still would like to know - WHY would you want to have this done later, when the pain and recovery time would interfere with life, as opposed to having it done when you will have no recollection of it...? And why would you want your foreskin back for that matter... I mean... I dunno, maybe I just don't understand the point of keeping it?

exactly, it's medically proven you're better off without it. and even if you're not, it serves no freaking purpose...except if you're looking for something to accuse religion of.

 

[phlogistician]

bottom line, regardless of religion, circumcision is more beneficial than unnecessary.
while most religious traditions are not well backed up, this one happens to be better for people.

get over it people.

Bullshit. It is completely unnecessary in developed countries. Wash your dick, don't screw skanks and bag it for good measure, case solved.

You are just supporting it because it was done to you. Trying to make the best of a bad situation.

 

[phlogistician]

I find that minutely smaller circumcised penis more attractive. I would NEVER put an uncircumcised one in my mouth. ick

Yes you would. if circumcision wasn't so prevalent, you wouldn't give it a second thought.

 

[phlogistician]

I was circumcised as a newborn... and I'll tell ya this - I wouldn't WANT to be more sensitive... I LIKE the fact that, if my wife and I so desire, I can hold back for upwards of 30-40 minutes .

Just 30 to 40 minutes?

 

[Orleander]

Orleander what would you say if your husband said "sorry but if you don't get your boobs enlarged I'm dumping you"?

I'd probably say "Asguard is an idiot" :shrug:

 

[Orleander]

Yes you would. if circumcision wasn't so prevalent, you wouldn't give it a second thought.

yep, pretty sure I would

 

[Asguard]

Orleander i would never be with a sexist like you, women who expects her partner to go through a life threatening and sexually damaging surgery for HER benifit is a sexist and an idiot as she is to stupid to realise that she is expecting him to not only sacrifice his sexual pleasure but her own too. The leading cause of vaginal dryness male genital mutilation as well as the inability to vaginally orgasium.

 

[Orleander]

Orleander i would never be with a sexist like you, women who expects her partner to go through a life threatening and sexually damaging surgery for HER benifit is a sexist and an idiot as she is to stupid to realise that she is expecting him to not only sacrifice his sexual pleasure but her own too. The leading cause of vaginal dryness male genital mutilation as well as the inability to vaginally orgasium.

Nope, you would NEVER be with me, and it wouldn't be your choice either. LOL I would have made that decision long before you had your pants down.

 

[Stoniphi]

...if it does no harm, then it does no good either.

...I wouldn't WANT to be more sensitive...

Strange logic, that.

'They' say that the 'nerves become less sensitive' as the years go by - the nerves "die back". Mine did not, they remain quite sensitive to chafing from such things as my dam pants that I wear every day.

It takes only ONE contrary fact to completely destroy an errant hypothesis. You claim that a natural part of my body is unnecessary - a part that was there to protect me from experiencing daily pain and discomfort? That is your hypothesis, and I am an exception to your errant hypothesis.

OK - your eyes do no harm, so we should remove them as they do no good either? Very strange logic indeed. I suspect that you have a very strong religious motivation on this topic. :bugeye:

You do not have the right to mutilate a baby's sex parts for whatever reason you can hork up to rationalize that. There should be a law to protect your children from your barbaric bloodlust.

 

[Kittamaru]

Just 30 to 40 minutes?

*grins slightly* My wife is a serious tease... I reckon a lesser gentleman would be looking at a few minutes tops after the, hm, foreplay we go through (the foreplay itself can last an hour or more some nights... depends how much energy we have and if we need to be up early lol)

Strange logic, that.

'They' say that the 'nerves become less sensitive' as the years go by - the nerves "die back". Mine did not, they remain quite sensitive to chafing from such things as my dam pants that I wear every day.

It takes only ONE contrary fact to completely destroy an errant hypothesis. You claim that a natural part of my body is unnecessary - a part that was there to protect me from experiencing daily pain and discomfort? That is your hypothesis, and I am an exception to your errant hypothesis.

OK - your eyes do no harm, so we should remove them as they do no good either? Very strange logic indeed. I suspect that you have a very strong religious motivation on this topic. :bugeye:

You do not have the right to mutilate a baby's sex parts for whatever reason you can hork up to rationalize that. There should be a law to protect your children from your barbaric bloodlust.

Oh, the foreskin serves no purpose NOW - it's theorized that it was, quite literally, a meat-shield. It prevented grit and other unpleasantness (insects, parasites, etc) from simply crawling up yer piss-hole and taking residence in your body. Now, with these things we call clothes, we don't need that silly flap of skin that gets in the way *shrug* So why keep it? Sure, in a few thousand years evolution might do it for us... but, well, we still have a pancreas though we can't find a single use for it nowadays.

 

[spidergoat]

Just because you can do without it, doesn't mean we don't have a right to a complete organ.

 

[Kittamaru]

Just because you can do without it, doesn't mean we don't have a right to a complete organ.

Okay then... give me a good reason to keep it, despite the risk of such fun things as paraphimosis, UTI's, and penile cancers. Most studies I've seen show little to no incidence of penile cancer in circumcised males, while the risk is around one in 600 in uncircumcised males... I'm sorry, I REALLY don't want penis cancer to be on my list of things to worry about

 

[spidergoat]

Because it's your fucking penis, that's why! It has nerve endings and shit, why fuck with something like that just because you are too much of a pussy to take a very minimal risk? Did you compare that with other similar risks? How about testicular cancer? You only need one ball to reproduce, why keep two?

 

[Asguard]

Okay then... give me a good reason to keep it, despite the risk of such fun things as paraphimosis, UTI's, and penile cancers. Most studies I've seen show little to no incidence of penile cancer in circumcised males, while the risk is around one in 600 in uncircumcised males... I'm sorry, I REALLY don't want penis cancer to be on my list of things to worry about

Did you read the thread at all?

UTIs are highly uncommon in men period and the difference is tiny
The risk of death from the procedure is higher than SIDS (bells post)
The NZ study that Links MGM with female vaginal dryness and inability to orgasium
Penile cancer is mostly caused by HPV so insted of mutilating boys try lobbying for boys to have the same access to Gardecell girls do (you know we vaccinate girls against HPV rather than just cutting out there cervic at birth)
The risks of breast cancer FAR outweigh that of penile cancer but we aren't excising baby girls breast tissue at birth to stop them getting that
The foreskin improves insertion into the vagina reducing discomfort by both parties and improves female stimulation during sex
MGM causes the skin of the gland to toughen and the nerve endings to die back as a defense mechanism against the fact that it's now exposed to the air and clothing and everything else (I did an experiment around this and I couldn't last 10 min with it exposed, it's only supposed to be exposed when it's in a vagina or mouth, ie some place damp)
The foreskin itself has more nerve endings per space than your fingertips which are used for fine touch control, basically your removing all the nerve endings which in a women line the vagina wall and allow for vaginal stimulation.
Lastly because it's there, we were born that way and the first thing you should say on seeing a new son is "he's perfect", not "now cut off a few bits"

 

[Bells]

Okay then... give me a good reason to keep it, despite the risk of such fun things as paraphimosis, UTI's, and penile cancers.

You can still get UTI's and penile cancer even without your foreskin. As for paraphimosis, that is what circumcision is for. After the fact. Suggesting that baby boys are circumicised in the rare and off chance they may develop it and circumcised without anaesthetic is cruel and barbaric. Would be akin to removing people's tonsills on the off chance they may get tonsillitis.

Most studies I've seen show little to no incidence of penile cancer in circumcised males, while the risk is around one in 600 in uncircumcised males... I'm sorry, I REALLY don't want penis cancer to be on my list of things to worry about

Right..

Prevention

Circumcision may decrease the risk. Men who are not circumcised should be taught at an early age the importance of cleaning beneath the foreskin as part of their personal hygiene.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002255/

Emphasis mine..

Several authors have proposed circumcision as a possible strategy for penile cancer prevention;[13][14][15] however, the American Cancer Society point to the rarity of the disease and note that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinoma_of_the_penis

You'd have equal to better chance of preventing it if you just cleaned yourself daily instead of removing it. The 1 in 600 chance is inflated by figures from developing countries who do not have access to clean water. Amazingly enough, it amounts to 10% of cancers in males in Africa, with so many men being circumcised in Africa.. One has to wonder why it is so high there... Even being circumcised, you still need to clean your genitals daily. As poor hygiene is one of the factors that can increase your chance of contracting it.

As for a reason that you may want to keep it. It creates a slight ribbed affect under the base of your erect penis, which is not only stimulating and sensitive for you, but also incredibly sensitive to your sexual partner - ie. it makes sex better for her as it creates another stimulating factor in the equation.

 

[Kittamaru]

*shrugs* I dunno, just seems like it's more work than it's worth to keep such a useless flap of skin... my opinion mind you. As for the infantile circumcision being cruel and barbaric... well, to be honest, I don't remember it being done to me... nor do I remember any pain or suffering from it being done. Now, I'm sure it hurt at the time, but I'd rather have something like that taken care of then, when I wouldn't remember it, than risk even a 1% chance of having complications as an adult and needing to take time off work/school/life to have it done then. Still wondering how THAT particular call to the boss-man would go.

As for it making sex better for the partner... not that I'm tooting my own horn so to speak, but I reckon if she got much more sensation down there she'd pass out from sensory overload. It's all about how ya use it IMHO