1 2 3 4
You know, I've always found this whole circumcision debate to be utterly ridiculous.
As far as the World Health Organization is concerned, circumcision is medically beneficial.
I mean, does everybody else whose been circumcised as an infant remember some horrible trauma that I don't know about? I certainly don't, and my penis works just fine, thanks. It's a medical procedure, maybe you think it's frivolous, but it's hardly mutilation. Saying that circumcision is the mutilation of babies is a shameless appeal to emotion.
And to be completely honest, I'm mildly offended that a bunch of you think that I'm walking around with some defective mutilated mockery of genitalia just because my penis has a bit less skin than yours does.
You know what it is? It's men doing what they always do. Arguing over who has a better dick. Only now we get to pretend that it's ethically and medically relevant.
Gay Deist is absolutely right.
5/26/2011 2:51:49 AM
I'm sorry, what? You want him circumcised because you don't want him to be different? I know this whole diving off a cliff argument is tired and worn out, but if all the other parents shoved their kids off a cliff, would you do the same?
Alternatively, I invite you to move to South America, Europe or Asia amongst others with low circumcision rates. I can only find numbers from 1986, but those numbers show that here in Denmark only 1,6% of boys of 15 years and younger were circumcised. Move over here, and you won't have to
mutilate alter your son's penis without his consent just to have him fit in.
5/26/2011 3:22:01 AM
It's just a damn foreskin, people.
5/26/2011 3:35:18 AM
Mutilated might be a strong word, but we certainly aren't saying your penis is defective. It works, but it works differently. If that's a good or a bad change seems to differ from subject to subject, but one thing's for sure: It's a one-way procedure.
Like I stated on the previous page, I'm a girl, I don't have a penis myself. I could choose to ignore the subject and it would never play any role in my life. At all*. But playing with the idea of parents removing completely non-functional earlobes in lieu of the penis foreskin, I would still not want that to be practised. It's a cosmetic procedure performed on someone who hasn't given their consent and is in no position to give it either. Non-functional flaps of skin on the ears and mucous membrane that keeps the gland moist the same way eyelids keep eyes from drying out alike, save it for when they're old enough to make that decision for themselves.
*Unless I had a baby boy and his father wanted him circumcised.
5/26/2011 3:37:51 AM
Does Gerald Polley go around examining men's penises? Gerry, are you sure you are really quitre straight?
5/26/2011 3:51:11 AM
5/26/2011 4:42:49 AM
I didn't mean to say that you personally had insulted me. It's just that I've run into this argument before and it always seems to devolve into a bunch of guys arguing about who has a better penis. As a result I'm sort of preemptively annoyed with the topic, and got a bit worked up. So I came across a bit more rudely than I should have. I apologize.
Using earlobes as a metaphor isn't accurate though. Earlobes would be purely cosmetic, and would also be on display constantly. But circumcision does have medical benefits. Not just general hygiene, but it reduces the chances of getting a urinary tract infection, HPV, or even HIV. Maybe not at a rate high enough for it to be a vital medical procedure, but it certainly makes it more than merely cosmetic.
The only harmful effects of circumcision, aside from perhaps a mild decrease of sexual pleasure, are usually a result of a botched procedure and thus aren't really indicative of normal results.
The benefits aren't huge miracle cures for anything, but it's also fundamentally harmless, and that's part of what bugs me. It makes the whole debate seem frivolous. There is no reason for circumcision to be mandatory, but neither is there any reason for it to be banned. I just don't see the point of legislation getting involved in either direction.
It just seems to me that in a world filled with real problems, starvation, war, disease, actual child abuse, bigotry, etc, the fact that there are actually groups out there spending time and money in a heated argument over something so utterly insignificant and irrelevant is just staggering to me. I suppose I should be used to that kind of thing by now, but it still gets to me. Maybe I'm just one of those people who takes everything too seriously.
5/26/2011 8:18:58 AM
@Percy Q. Shunn
"For Zeus Almighty:
This one's for you!"
Have her cosplay as Kneesocks (from "Panty & Stocking [with Garterbelt]"):
And send her to my room, for punishment. I've been a baaaaad boy...! Which goes against the 'RRRRURURU!' (and I want her to deliciously trill that word too!) [/Memetic Mutation]
She's my favourite of the Demon Sisters, TakoTaco (okay, so I have a weakness for meganekkos - that, and she wears hosiery; also, as shown above, she's hotter'n Hell in those lethal heels too :9. So sue me! :P X3 ).
5/26/2011 9:03:01 AM
It's quite alright. I think it happens to even the best of us that we come across more crossly than we intended. I think we largely agree on the severity of circumcision, at least in that neither of us think it should be mandatory or completely outlawed. I am just of the opinion that everyone should have their say in whether they want to sacrifice pleasure for convenience; which they don't if the choice is made for them while they are infants.
Phoque yeah, Niisokkusu-san~~
Don't we all prefer her? She's so awesome.
(I'd love to cosplay her some time, but the only way to beat what you've got there is to actually be bloodred all over)
5/26/2011 11:55:34 AM
@ LV426 --
You can defend just about anything if you ignore unintended consequences. Evaluating a course of action should be based on the widespread results, not only on the presumably most likely case.
5/26/2011 12:27:30 PM
Shouldn't the boys be old enough decide for themselves if their foreskins should be permanently removed or not?
Parents don't own their kids, they are not free to do whatever they want with them, under the guise of religion.
Children have rights of their own.
If the foreskin is painfully small, it is of course another matter.
5/26/2011 12:39:34 PM
I've seen everything.
Look, I prefer cut to uncut, but I've never claimed that uncut is "an attack on Judaism and the state of Israel".
5/26/2011 2:05:01 PM
Every foreskin has a right to life.
5/26/2011 3:04:49 PM
Actually, I just don't prefer boys in general. So much for that nonsense. And FYI, circumcision is an involuntary procedure inflicted on an individual who cannot consent, much less even voice disagreement beyond wailing and screaming. So yeah. Fuck you, Gerald Polley.
5/26/2011 5:39:31 PM
Yes, it seems to happen to me quite often. I think that, over the years, the internet has slowly drained me of whatever patience I used to have. So any serious conversation makes me look like I'm perpetually grumpy. Hell, I could be sitting here talking about waffles and syrup and I'd probably still somehow manage to come across as a bit miffed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion. It's just my opinion that there's no real harm done to the infant because the infant isn't even aware of the procedure, so I think that legislation to protect the infant is unnecessary. On the other hand, however comparatively uncommon they may be, in the cases where the parents wait until the child is older and thus actually conscious of the experience, I think we'd agree entirely.
I'm not ignoring unintended consequences, unintended consequences aren't typical results. I really don't think it's a huge assumption to think most surgeons can do their jobs right. I'm not going to judge circumcision negatively based solely on what happens when a surgeon makes a mistake any more than I'm going to judge heart surgery negatively based solely on what happens when a surgeon makes a mistake.
5/27/2011 5:36:01 AM
Jonah - to ensure the whale was Kosher - hired a specific number of Mohels expert in the use of scuba gear. Yes, ladies and germs, he sent down four skin divers.
Thank you, I'm here all week. Try the buffet - including the Hula Hoops. >:D
Fun fact: In "P&S (w/G)", Panty refers to Geek Boy/Brief as 'Phimosis Boy'. X3
5/27/2011 8:27:05 AM
"People want to outlaw something that's fundamentally wrong. My religion likes people to cut their male children's genitals as a show of solidarity because some ancient book says you should so I'm going to claim that gays like to molest uncircumcised boys and hate Jews. I am such an innocent victim."
If this is an attack on Judaism then I guess I'm antisemitic. Oh well.
5/28/2011 4:53:13 AM
Sorry, my brother is not circumcised. He's straight, married, and a doctor and thinks that it's unnecesary. Try not to play God(seriously)
5/28/2011 11:07:16 AM
"I have a friend who's a mohel. He says the pay is lousy, but the tips are good."
(*clicks open 'MP3s' folder, opens 'Comedy' folder, opens 'Weird Al Yankovic' folder and opens MP3 track in Winamp:*)
'When he's doing a Bar Mitzvah, now that you shouldn't miss
He'll always shlep on down for a wedding or a Bris
They say he's got a lot of chutzpah, he's really quite chhhhip
The parents pay the mohel and he gets to keep the tip!'
-"Pretty Fly For A Rabbi"
5/28/2011 11:33:30 AM
She's just bitter because he hasn't given up his foreskin to make delicious Prickles XD
5/29/2011 9:51:28 AM
Wow you can almost feel the pure hate and opportunism of this guy
You're the kind of guy who would love to see homosexuals put into camps for so-called reeducation.
5/29/2011 10:49:01 AM
I'm pretty sure they challenge it because it's genital mutilation, not because they hate Jews.
5/29/2011 4:05:59 PM
People who say circumcision has medical benefits obviously hasn't really researched it.
Yes, some doctors/nurses claim it does, but they also used to claim smoking was good for you.
Less than 45% of Americans are circumcising now. They've finally realized how harmful it is, and that's it's genital mutilation.
5/29/2011 8:57:33 PM
Here's some food for thought for Gerry-boy to chew on:
We - humans - are 'made in God's image', correct? (according to Bible literalist fundies like Gerry here). And according to God, males (certainly Jews) have to be circumcised. Now, if said human Jewish males have foreskins - and have been made
in the image of their God' - then that means God is exactly like said humans he created. Therefore he must have had a forsekin too; and of course, as per his orders, those like him - male (Jews) - have to be circumcised.
Thus fundies - certainly Gerry in this specific case - should ask themselves a couple of questions:
1- Who circumcised God?
2- If human men were meant to be sans foreskin, why were they born with them in the first place?
Doesn't that in itself conclusively prove that an 'Intelligent Designer' - and therefore by definition, God - doesn't
exist? One more thing: Isn't bodily mutilation in any way, shape or form forbidden in Leviticus?
Nope, no doublethink on their part, nosiree. [/hyper-sarcasm]
Moral: Gerry-boy's just getting sand in his vagina about something that doesn't even fucking relate to him in any way, shape or form. Unless he was circumcised himself, and it was a botched job.
...oh, and as for the concept, nay, the context of 'hygiene', just two words that - today - completely annihilates the whole debate: Baths. Showers.
Now, after you've swallowed that, care for some Prickles, Gerry...? Take two, they're small.
A little surprise for you:
Yep. A "P&S(w/G)" Wiki exists.
5/30/2011 8:43:25 AM
One thing missing from this discussion is anyone complaining about being circumcised. I am a man in my 30s in America so most men my age are likely circumcised and I have yet to hear someone complain about it. That doesn't mean there is no merit to the notion of not altering someone without their consent, because generally that is a good rule. But as a Jew (and a father of 2 boys) I prefer to be able to make my religious choices as opposed to them being outlawed. No, I don't think this proposed law is in any way against Jews (or even Muslims) but it also does not need to be a law any more than abortion should be outlawed. If people want to educate others on supposed harmful effects then go right ahead. But it seems that the majority of people complaining are those who aren't affected which should tell you something. So unless people have a religious or medical reason for circumcising, then don't; and that seems to be the trend anyway.
@Anon-e-moose: just FYI, Fundamentalists, no matter how literal, do not believe that God (i.e. "the Father") has physical form. Mormons are the only ones that believe that God used to be an actual man.
5/30/2011 1:20:17 PM
1 2 3 4