An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
I'm Going To Cut Your Dick Off [Circumcision]
Cognisseur
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
it is such a silly, minor issue
...maybe yours is...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
And yet you still can't give a reason for your opposition.
No, circumcision is not mutilation. This is.
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.
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.
Not all female circumcision is female genital mutilation, or infibulation.
And my fiance uses his foreskin a lot!
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.
That was part of a historical reason for a brief British fad. A fad that has nothing to do with modern circumcision anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
It's worth it.
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.
What about your mutilation of logic?
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.
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
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!"
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?
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.
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.
I've heard people express this preference. It always disappears when they actually encounter an uncircumcised penis.
Protip: There really isn't any difference.
and since circumcision is none of the above, it's not mutilation
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?
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.
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.
Bull shit, it takes away your ability to masturbate without lube. It fucking robs you of your masturbary gland, damn it!