|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 5, 2005 16:15:09 GMT
Yes Circumcision. Thought I would start off a good topic for debate. Should it be banned ? Should it be choice ? Are you against or foreskin it ? (Ok, that was a really bad joke !) I, as one that has been under the knife as a new born, am happy that it was done. I have also said, that if I ever had a boy, I would choose to do the same to him. Purely for aesthetic reasons (wanting him to look like me and most everyone else). But alas, I had 2 girls. That is both worrisome to me (dating - AARRHHH) and a relief (I don't have to make a choice). but now that I have seen it done.... I am not sure what I would decide. Good God that is brutal !! I still am glad I (or my dear mother) had it done ... more glad that I have no memory of it, for sure ... and I am very happy, but would "I" choose to have it done ?? I have no idea !!! Everyone keeps saying that it is better, because "most" men are. You know ... keep up with the norm, but if we stop doing this, wouldn't the uncut look then become the norm ? I mean all it would take is 3 or 4 generations and BAM !! More from me later ... How about you guys ? And gals !!
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 5, 2005 16:23:11 GMT
Also, another thing to consider ... while this is a VERY common practice for boys here in the U.S. , we condemn (AS WE SHOULD) the similar mutilation that is happening in Africa and India to girls. Why is one frowned upon and another, not only accepted, but considered "The Norm" ?? I mean, I just got through saying that I "would" have mutilated my infant son, in this manner, but to think of such a thing happening to my daughter just sickens me. Wow, I am more confused now than when I started typing this. Ok ... thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 5, 2005 17:17:54 GMT
Less common in Britain by far, and I honestly cringe at the thought, loose skin or not. Maybe it's just the idea of a really sharp knife getting that close to a part of my anatomy I would rather not lose And the mutilation of girls is widely condemned because it's not a tip of loose skin that's cut off, but actual physical damage to the girl. I think the equivalent would be cutting the first inch or so off of your manhood in addition to the foreskin, Perry... So overall, I think circumcision should be a matter of choice, but female genital mutilation should be outlawed.
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 5, 2005 17:25:43 GMT
And the mutilation of girls is widely condemned because it's not a tip of loose skin that's cut off, but actual physical damage to the girl. . Yes, but isn't it still just as tramatic for the young male ? I know they are severe (damage to the females), but just wierd how we accept even the slightest mutalation to infants. Again, I am not pro or con to male circumcision, I just started out totally for it and now ... ?? I think the equivalent would be cutting the first inch or so off of your manhood in addition to the foreskin, Perry.... But that would leave me with nothing !!! oh the horror !! So overall, I think circumcision should be a matter of choice, but female genital mutilation should be outlawed. Again, a nice idea ... but how can an infant have a choice ?? Should they be banned until the male can choose (at 18) to have this done ?? Having seen it, there is no freaking way I would do it to myself. but at the same time .. glad it was done. Many men are not glad it was done. Should they be allowed to sue their parents ??
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 5, 2005 17:33:51 GMT
I think the free choice of the individual is the best idea, but it would be hard to outlaw the practice of circumcising young boys without positive proof that it is psychologically harmful.
Also, it is supposedly good from a health perspective, though I don't know the full reasons behind that one...
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jun 5, 2005 18:35:44 GMT
*Just Cringes*
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jun 5, 2005 23:46:14 GMT
And the mutilation of girls is widely condemned because it's not a tip of loose skin that's cut off, but actual physical damage to the girl. I think the equivalent would be cutting the first inch or so off of your manhood in addition to the foreskin, Perry... I think the equivalent would be even more than that. In most cases, female circumsition is performed to efectively destroy any type of sexual pleasure, as the clitoris is removed. It's not just for practical or health reasons, is an all-out brutal and horrible practice. Also, it is supposedly good from a health perspective, though I don't know the full reasons behind that one... It has been argued that circumcision is benefical and helps prevent several skin diseases and conditions, including Penis Cancer (and before men everywhere panic, it is extremely rare as it is) It has been severely argued and disputed, though.
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Jun 6, 2005 3:52:07 GMT
don't we circumcise our fingers & toes every week or so? the nails? for some countries especially muslim countries, circumcision is also a norm for boys & now with better technology for healthcare, it's safer than before. whether to go for it or not, it's just a matter of personal preference. heck it's only skin! as for female circumcision however, i am all against it as it cuts off more than the skin & totally ruins the women involved. that is a big NO-NO.
|
|
|
Post by hector on Jun 6, 2005 4:38:03 GMT
don't we circumcise our fingers & toes every week or so? the nails? Well, nails are all dead cells, so I'm not sure if the analogy is 100% accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Venom65437 on Jun 6, 2005 5:07:10 GMT
PT, this was an awful thing to start talking about. LoL.
|
|
|
Post by philster on Jun 6, 2005 8:06:23 GMT
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by thebarkingshark on Jun 18, 2005 21:57:58 GMT
Leave it to Perry to start a topic like this! I've been holding my Johnson cringing ever since I started reading this thread! I think that female circumcision should not be done. After all, the clitoris is one of my favorite female parts! I personally wasn't circumcised as an infant, and I'm glad because I have a very beautiful penis. -SHARK DIGGLER
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 18, 2005 23:16:05 GMT
Circumcision has actually proven that if you have it, it lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs (However does NOT make you immune, it just lesses the chances, don't tkae this as an excuse to be sloppy in any way, the odds are still high, just not AS high)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 18, 2005 23:18:08 GMT
...I think Shark might just have won MY vote for funniest post so far on this forum ;D
|
|
|
Post by thebarkingshark on Jun 19, 2005 1:26:25 GMT
...I think Shark might just have won MY vote for funniest post so far on this forum ;D Really? Wow. Cool, thanks! -SHARK DIGGLER
|
|
BJC
Apprentice
We Own The Night
Posts: 301
|
Post by BJC on Jun 19, 2005 2:11:15 GMT
Leave it to Perry to start a topic like this! I've been holding my Johnson cringing ever since I started reading this thread! I think that female circumcision should not be done. After all, the clitoris is one of my favorite female parts! I personally wasn't circumsided as an infant, and I'm glad because I have a very beautiful penis. -SHARK DIGGLERFor the love of....!? I didnt get passed the second sentance, I couldnt stop laughing.....and thats sad! Theres a rule, about being 'female friendly', Shark, you should be the enforcer of that rule ;D LOL
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 19, 2005 14:08:58 GMT
Leave it to Perry to start a topic like this! Oh yea baby ... I love me some penis talk. .... .. I did not just say that I personally wasn't circumcised as an infant, and I'm glad because I have a very beautiful penis. -SHARK DIGGLER I've seen better Circumcision has actually proven that if you have it, it lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs (However does NOT make you immune, it just lesses the chances ... Actually that is not true. Well it is, but not entirely. There are medical studies that prove circumcision lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs AS WELL AS medical studies that prove un-circumcised lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs. I swear that is true. There are also conflicting reports/studies that prove the cleanliness factor. Some reports state un-circumcised is better at keeping out various bacteria, as well as preventing urinary tract infection, while other reports state the same about circumcised. (Sad when we can't get an actually medical standard on this, but this is true.)
|
|
tragic
Chaosite
Happiness is a cigar called hamlet
Posts: 627
|
Post by tragic on Jun 19, 2005 14:10:26 GMT
I hate circum thingy...see i cant even bear to say it......
I will say that in some african countires there is female circum thingy...im not sure if its a muslim thing or not...i know muslims boys have to be circum thingy..i think theres mention in it for females as well???
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jun 19, 2005 15:59:58 GMT
I swear Perry, you always did live on the "cutting edge" of everything we ever talked about! he he.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 19, 2005 19:27:16 GMT
Leave it to Perry to start a topic like this! Oh yea baby ... I love me some penis talk. .... .. I did not just say that I've seen better Circumcision has actually proven that if you have it, it lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs (However does NOT make you immune, it just lesses the chances ... Actually that is not true. Well it is, but not entirely. There are medical studies that prove circumcision lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs AS WELL AS medical studies that prove un-circumcised lesses the chances of you catching HIV/AIDs. I swear that is true. There are also conflicting reports/studies that prove the cleanliness factor. Some reports state un-circumcised is better at keeping out various bacteria, as well as preventing urinary tract infection, while other reports state the same about circumcised. (Sad when we can't get an actually medical standard on this, but this is true.) Actually, it has to do with the foreskin. I was watching a whole thing on it.
|
|