The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

I'm Going To Cut Your Dick Off [Circumcision]

CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
edited June 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
So the assholes in the "What's Our Generation's Evilness?" thread couldn't stop talking about dicks for several pages so I'm making this thread hoping they'll come here for their stupid little debate.

So here we go. Some people are stupid traditional assholes who think "hey, we should cut that baby's dick off because my daddy cut my dick off". This is stupid.

At some point, people realized that sounded really stupid, and they tried to add fake reasoning to it. "oh boy, I sure am glad someone chopped part of my junk off, because now I have a lower chance of catching some disease when I don't wash my junk for a month straight".

These are stupid reasons because if my doctor ever came up to me, as an adult, and said "hey, I know how we can lower your risk for some random stuff a bit, let's cut off part of your dick", I would say no. I hope you would too.

So now you can having your raging dick debate in here. Hurrah.

Cognisseur on
«13456725

Posts

  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    i just can't bring myself to care a lot

    it is such a silly, minor issue

    Organichu on
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    i just can't bring myself to care a lot

    it is such a silly, minor issue

    ...maybe yours is...

    Cognisseur on
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    i mean i've lived in north america, asia, and europe

    never did i feel like whether my dick was cut was going to define my life

    who cares :\

    Organichu on
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    i mean i've lived in north america, asia, and europe

    never did i feel like whether my dick was cut was going to define my life

    who cares :\

    A lot of people who took over and fucked up my thread, apparently. I guess I would care more if I was a gay dude or a straight chick, but as it stands dicks don't come near my face too often so I don't ponder their shape that much, personally.

    Cognisseur on
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    no, i feel ya, i'm not trashing you for making the thread

    i am just perpetually mystified about why the discussion ever takes root... with the intensity it does, i mean. everything out there is worth at least considering, but i have seen people treat this like the issue of our age and i'm like c'mon.

    Organichu on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I've spoken to people — young people, but with some sexual experience — who have never seen an uncircumcised penis and assume that they are gross.

    I guess it's just another one of those things that shouldn't be a big deal, but is because of how messed up our culture is about sex in general.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    i mean i've lived in north america, asia, and europe

    never did i feel like whether my dick was cut was going to define my life

    who cares :\

    A lot of people who took over and fucked up my thread, apparently. I guess I would care more if I was a gay dude or a straight chick, but as it stands dicks don't come near my face too often so I don't ponder their shape that much, personally.

    Like with vaccination, I don't really care, either. It's just that the argument is stupid. Take yours. Can you explain why you'd refuse, or does it just squick you out?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    i mean i've lived in north america, asia, and europe

    never did i feel like whether my dick was cut was going to define my life

    who cares :\

    A lot of people who took over and fucked up my thread, apparently. I guess I would care more if I was a gay dude or a straight chick, but as it stands dicks don't come near my face too often so I don't ponder their shape that much, personally.

    Like with vaccination, I don't really care, either. It's just that the argument is stupid. Take yours. Can you explain why you'd refuse, or does it just squick you out?

    Wait, are you honestly asking me why I'd refuse if my doctor asked to chop off part of my junk? Is this a real question or am I misunderstanding you?

    Cognisseur on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    i mean i've lived in north america, asia, and europe

    never did i feel like whether my dick was cut was going to define my life

    who cares :\

    A lot of people who took over and fucked up my thread, apparently. I guess I would care more if I was a gay dude or a straight chick, but as it stands dicks don't come near my face too often so I don't ponder their shape that much, personally.

    Like with vaccination, I don't really care, either. It's just that the argument is stupid. Take yours. Can you explain why you'd refuse, or does it just squick you out?

    Wait, are you honestly asking me why I'd refuse if my doctor asked to chop off part of my junk? Is this a real question or am I misunderstanding you?

    Are you using that part? Is that part of any use to you? Are you also going to refuse when your doctor wants to snip you when you're in your forties and he doesn't want your old person genes getting out?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Are you using that part?
    Is that part of any use to you? Are you also going to refuse when your doctor wants to snip you when you're in your forties and he doesn't want your old person genes getting out?

    That's the argument in favor of cutting off part of my dick? See, this is exactly what I was saying in the OP. This isn't some procedure that involves a squeamish subject but has such amazing benefits that people are nonetheless sprinting to the doctors' offices to get the procedure.

    This is just a stupid tradition that we continue to carry on today. However, unlike how things worked 100 years ago, we now have a tendency not to accept "because it's how we've always done things!" as an explanation, so people are scrambling to find fake reasons to retroactively justify circumcision.

    It doesn't work that way. "Are you using that part" isn't some cogent and convincing argument for me to go to my doctor and have him cut off part of my dick, and I can't see how that in itself (and not the religious/tradition component) could convince anyone.

    Cognisseur on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I'm really not using my toenails. And without them I wouldn't be able to get nail fungus. We should just remove them at birth.
    I use my foreskin.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Are you using that part?
    Is that part of any use to you? Are you also going to refuse when your doctor wants to snip you when you're in your forties and he doesn't want your old person genes getting out?

    That's the argument in favor of cutting off part of my dick? See, this is exactly what I was saying in the OP. This isn't some procedure that involves a squeamish subject but has such amazing benefits that people are nonetheless sprinting to the doctors' offices to get the procedure.

    This is just a stupid tradition that we continue to carry on today. However, unlike how things worked 100 years ago, we now have a tendency not to accept "because it's how we've always done things!" as an explanation, so people are scrambling to find fake reasons to retroactively justify circumcision.

    It doesn't work that way. "Are you using that part" isn't some cogent and convincing argument for me to go to my doctor and have him cut off part of my dick, and I can't see how that in itself (and not the religious/tradition component) could convince anyone.

    And yet you still can't give a reason for your opposition.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.

    Captain Carrot on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    Except that was part of the historical reason for practicing male circumcision. To stop them enjoying sex and most especially masturbation. It's destroying the natural form and function of a body part for no real benefit and numerous potential losses (including malformed penile growth). It's mutilation until someone can come up with a different and possibly better term.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate


    mu·ti·late
       /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ [myoot-l-eyt]
    –verb (used with object),-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
    1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
    2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Female circumcision takes many forms, one of which is the removal of the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is the exact biological analogue of the male foreskin, and thus the two operations are identical in purpose and function.

    Not all female circumcision is female genital mutilation, or infibulation.

    And my fiance uses his foreskin a lot!

    sidhaethe on
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And yet you still can't give a reason for your opposition.

    I don't understand... what kind of reason are you looking for?

    Are you honestly shocked and confused that there isn't a huge line out the door at the doctor's office for men hoping to get circumcised and now you're seeking guidance as to why this is so?

    It just feels like you're asking me to prove a negative. I haven't had part of my dick cut off because I see no good reason to do so. I'm generally a fan of my body and find the idea of permanently removing parts that don't regrow simply because "eh, why not?" to be kind of strange.

    Cognisseur on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    Except that was part of the historical reason for practicing male circumcision. To stop them enjoying sex and most especially masturbation. It's destroying the natural form and function of a body part for no real benefit and numerous potential losses (including malformed penile growth). It's mutilation until someone can come up with a different and possibly better term.

    That was part of a historical reason for a brief British fad. A fad that has nothing to do with modern circumcision anywhere.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    Except that was part of the historical reason for practicing male circumcision. To stop them enjoying sex and most especially masturbation. It's destroying the natural form and function of a body part for no real benefit and numerous potential losses (including malformed penile growth). It's mutilation until someone can come up with a different and possibly better term.

    Regardless of why it was originally done, it's not why it's done now, and it doesn't actually have that effect. Whereas the folks who do female genital (actual) mutilation are specifically trying to keep the girls from ever wanting sex.

    They aren't the same thing. At all.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I actually do use that part of my dick a lot, cause I don't need to spit on it to wack it.

    I think that's only reason why they started to cut off the foreskin, to prevent men from masturbating and spilling their seeds on the ground.

    Casually Hardcore on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    Except that was part of the historical reason for practicing male circumcision. To stop them enjoying sex and most especially masturbation. It's destroying the natural form and function of a body part for no real benefit and numerous potential losses (including malformed penile growth). It's mutilation until someone can come up with a different and possibly better term.

    Regardless of why it was originally done, it's not why it's done now, and it doesn't actually have that effect. Whereas the folks who do female genital (actual) mutilation are specifically trying to keep the girls from ever wanting sex.

    They aren't the same thing. At all.

    Mutilation is mutilation. It doesn't matter how severe. Sorry. No one ever claimed it was 100% directly analogous to the exact practice you're talking about.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • HaleskarthHaleskarth Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    You know what they found under my foreskin when they cut it off? Gold, and also the source of all goodness.

    It's worth it.

    Haleskarth on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And yet you still can't give a reason for your opposition.

    I don't understand... what kind of reason are you looking for?

    Are you honestly shocked and confused that there isn't a huge line out the door at the doctor's office for men hoping to get circumcised and now you're seeking guidance as to why this is so?

    It just feels like you're asking me to prove a negative. I haven't had part of my dick cut off because I see no good reason to do so. I'm generally a fan of my body and find the idea of permanently removing parts that don't regrow simply because "eh, why not?" to be kind of strange.

    I've stated my reasons for my support. You even offered to pay me to stop. You, on the other hand, have yet to state why you oppose the procedure besides some unexpanded (shut up) fear of someone touching your penis.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    Can we at least agree that we shouldn't use the same term for cutting off a small part of the penis which has debatable effect either way as we do for hacking up a girl's hoo-ha with the express purpose of keeping her from ever enjoying sex?

    Except that was part of the historical reason for practicing male circumcision. To stop them enjoying sex and most especially masturbation. It's destroying the natural form and function of a body part for no real benefit and numerous potential losses (including malformed penile growth). It's mutilation until someone can come up with a different and possibly better term.

    Regardless of why it was originally done, it's not why it's done now, and it doesn't actually have that effect. Whereas the folks who do female genital (actual) mutilation are specifically trying to keep the girls from ever wanting sex.

    They aren't the same thing. At all.

    Mutilation is mutilation. It doesn't matter how severe. Sorry. No one ever claimed it was 100% directly analogous to the exact practice you're talking about.

    What about your mutilation of logic?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    How about your mutilation of morality?

    See, I can argue this way too. Fun isn't it?

    And pointless.


    1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I actually do use that part of my dick a lot, cause I don't need to spit on it to wack it.

    I think that's only reason why they started to cut off the foreskin, to prevent men from masturbating and spilling their seeds on the ground.

    who needs to spit on it?

    anyway I don't miss mine, and there's always a chance you might need to have it lopped off anyway and it sucks majorly as an adult. so I'd say win/win

    Jars on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mutilation is mutilation. It doesn't matter how severe. Sorry. No one ever claimed it was 100% directly analogous to the exact practice you're talking about.

    Bwah? Seriously?

    So is piercing your toddler's ears before they're old enough to grant informed consent also in the same class as setting someone on fire? Because severity is irrelevant?

    See, this sort of crazy-ass moral equivalence is why it's often hard to take the anti-circumcision crowd seriously. It can't just be "this isn't such a hot idea and has risks that outweigh the benefits," it has to be "SHOCK! OUTRAGE! INDIGNATION!"

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • DirtyDirtyVagrantDirtyDirtyVagrant Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I...I can't believe this is a real thread.

    Mine is circumsized. I've seen numerous females on the board profess their preference for cut men. I'm pretty sure that if I was gonna do a guy, I'd prefer that he'd be cut too. It's really all aerodynamics, at this point.

    To each their own? I guess?

    DirtyDirtyVagrant on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mutilation is mutilation. It doesn't matter how severe. Sorry. No one ever claimed it was 100% directly analogous to the exact practice you're talking about.

    Bwah? Seriously?

    So is piercing your toddler's ears before they're old enough to grant informed consent also in the same class as setting someone on fire? Because severity is irrelevant?

    See, this sort of crazy-ass moral equivalence is why it's often hard to take the anti-circumcision crowd seriously. It can't just be "this isn't such a hot idea and has risks that outweigh the benefits," it has to be "SHOCK! OUTRAGE! INDIGNATION!"

    As I posted in the other thread, I am against piercing your child's ears, but I don't have moral outrage because it can heal and thus is reversible.

    Also, DDV, my wife would say otherwise.

    Many women haven't been with both, or don't know the difference because they have protected sex. Considering it's the social norm in the US to be circumsized it's what many women expect to see/experience.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2010
    Actually, historically, the practice of circumcision started with the Jews (shocking, I know) and was done because it actually did have legitimate health benefits in those ancient times where you were living in a desert and did not have the ability to regularly bathe and bad shit did grow under the foreskin and cause problems. Now, it's done mostly for tradition, which is fairly stupid but we do a lot of stupid things in the name of tradition.

    Also, before anyone makes the claim that uncircumcised people feel more pleasure during sex or any of that bullshit, there have been a billion and a half studies and none of them show anything conclusively. As far as the research is concerned, there is no difference in libido or sexual gratification between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

    Premier kakos on
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I...I can't believe this is a real thread.

    Mine is circumsized. I've seen numerous females on the board profess their preference for cut men. I'm pretty sure that if I was gonna do a guy, I'd prefer that he'd be cut too. It's really all aerodynamics, at this point.

    To each their own? I guess?

    I've heard people express this preference. It always disappears when they actually encounter an uncircumcised penis.

    Protip: There really isn't any difference.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate


    mu·ti·late
       /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ [myoot-l-eyt]
    –verb (used with object),-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
    1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
    2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

    and since circumcision is none of the above, it's not mutilation

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • CognisseurCognisseur Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Cognisseur wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    And yet you still can't give a reason for your opposition.

    I don't understand... what kind of reason are you looking for?

    Are you honestly shocked and confused that there isn't a huge line out the door at the doctor's office for men hoping to get circumcised and now you're seeking guidance as to why this is so?

    It just feels like you're asking me to prove a negative. I haven't had part of my dick cut off because I see no good reason to do so. I'm generally a fan of my body and find the idea of permanently removing parts that don't regrow simply because "eh, why not?" to be kind of strange.

    I've stated my reasons for my support. You even offered to pay me to stop. You, on the other hand, have yet to state why you oppose the procedure besides some unexpanded (shut up) fear of someone touching your penis.

    I guess we just have different perceptions of the human body. For me personally, there exists some value to parts of my body being attached to me, even if I cannot explicitly quantify that value.

    If removing part of my penis were to grant me immorality or xray vision, I'd definitely do it. Those would be benefits that surpass my threshold of desire to keep things attached to me.

    For some minor risk lessening for various diseases or whatnot (I wasn't really paying attention to the circumcision discussion while you guys were debating it in the other thread, but there isn't any really amazing benefit for doing it, right?), those are not benefits that surpass my threshold of desire to keep things attached to me.

    Clearly, you have a much lower threshold of desire to keep things attached to you, so those benefits, no matter how mild, make sense. Is that a good reconciliation?

    Cognisseur on
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Also the act of cutting the dicks of the majority of the male population is a pretty new thing, starting post WWII. It was done for what they thought then would be health benefits. One reason have clip dick in Germany during the Nazis was a guaranteed trip with the rest of the Jews.

    Mazzyx on
    u7stthr17eud.png
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Adrien wrote: »
    I...I can't believe this is a real thread.

    Mine is circumsized. I've seen numerous females on the board profess their preference for cut men. I'm pretty sure that if I was gonna do a guy, I'd prefer that he'd be cut too. It's really all aerodynamics, at this point.

    To each their own? I guess?

    I've heard people express this preference. It always disappears when they actually encounter an uncircumcised penis.

    Protip: There really isn't any difference.

    The biggest difference I've heard from women is an additional sensation during unprotected sex (because apparently you can feel the foreskin moving around as another layer) and "smoother" sex (moisture held better, I guess). That's it as far as that part's concerned.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    I think they pay people in some african countries to get circumcised. It's a variation of the ice cream truck.

    Jars on
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate


    mu·ti·late
       /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ [myoot-l-eyt]
    –verb (used with object),-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
    1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
    2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

    and since circumcision is none of the above, it's not mutilation

    Obviously we are increasing the perfection of the male form by removing pieces that we all know weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

    Mblackwell on
    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    edited May 2010
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    Mblackwell wrote: »
    It's genital mutilation. Stop trying to justify it because it happened to you and you need to feel okay with it.

    No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate


    mu·ti·late
       /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ [myoot-l-eyt]
    –verb (used with object),-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
    1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
    2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

    and since circumcision is none of the above, it's not mutilation

    Bull shit, it takes away your ability to masturbate without lube. It fucking robs you of your masturbary gland, damn it!

    Casually Hardcore on
This discussion has been closed.