Has anyone seen the old Daily Show clip of the club who tries to make their foreskin "grow back?"
A bunch of gross looking guys attaching weights to their penises; lamenting to Beth Littleford about how their parents "mutilated" them so long ago. It really made them come off as complete silly geese. Just about what this thread is making most people come off as.
So the actual existence of people who didn't want to be circumcised but were forced to do so anyway is justification for infant circumcisions for you?
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
Has anyone seen the old Daily Show clip of the club who tries to make their foreskin "grow back?"
A bunch of gross looking guys attaching weights to their penises; lamenting to Beth Littleford about how their parents "mutilated" them so long ago. It really made them come off as complete silly geese. Just about what this thread is making most people come off as.
So the actual existence of people who didn't want to be circumcised but were forced to do so anyway is justification for infant circumcisions for you?
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
That's nice.
Maybe you could finally offer up a reason why it's necessary to preform medically unnecessary, irreversible surgery on someone's penis since it clearly doesn't matter either way yet, later on in life, some people do end up caring and have zero recourse?
Has anyone seen the old Daily Show clip of the club who tries to make their foreskin "grow back?"
A bunch of gross looking guys attaching weights to their penises; lamenting to Beth Littleford about how their parents "mutilated" them so long ago. It really made them come off as complete silly geese. Just about what this thread is making most people come off as.
So the actual existence of people who didn't want to be circumcised but were forced to do so anyway is justification for infant circumcisions for you?
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
Why don't you point me out to the whargarbll on this thread.
I mean, the stuff not coming from pro-circ people of course.
BECAUSE IT'S THEIR KID YOU SILLY GOOSE!!! You don't get to make decisions for other people's kids!! OMFG!!!
Oh, the pro-circumcision arguments are silly rationalism. There is no reason needed beyond that of a customary national tradition which marks a man as part of his people.
DisruptorX2 on
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Oh, and since you kept bringing it up, here's the objective difference in sensitivity. It's not a huge deal, but about as medically significant as the contested claim of some undefined reduction in the risk of a cancer which affects 1 in 100,000 men.
You mean the study about which the publishing journal later said "despite a poorly representative sample and a methodology prone to exaggerating the sensitivity of the prepuce, NOCIRC's claims remain unproven. When the authors' data are analysed properly, no significant differences exist. Thus the claim that circumcision adversely affects penile sensitivity is poorly supported, and this study provides no evidence for the belief that circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure?" That's your evidence?
Scalfin's lying, again. The BJU didn't say that. They published a letter that said that, by Waskett and Morris. That letter was then pretty heavily criticised itself.
Has anyone seen the old Daily Show clip of the club who tries to make their foreskin "grow back?"
A bunch of gross looking guys attaching weights to their penises; lamenting to Beth Littleford about how their parents "mutilated" them so long ago. It really made them come off as complete silly geese. Just about what this thread is making most people come off as.
So the actual existence of people who didn't want to be circumcised but were forced to do so anyway is justification for infant circumcisions for you?
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
Why don't you point me out to the whargarbll on this thread.
I mean, the stuff not coming from pro-circ people of course.
BECAUSE IT'S THEIR KID YOU SILLY GOOSE!!! You don't get to make decisions for other people's kids!! OMFG!!!
Again, pretty much the first page. Regardless of the fact that it was 24 pages ago it's still the first thing most new comers to the thread will read and the OP doesn't set a good pretext for the entire thread.
This is, unfortunately, something we'll have to deal with if we choose to keep discussing in this thread.
Quid: I missed the part where Astra is actually advocating Pro-circumcision. Is he?
I'm assuming so considering they're complaining about one particular side of the argument.
He could be on the fence then not really caring one way or another and just commenting on his impressions of the thread and giving his opinion. There are several view points he could be taking.
Of course, now that I've said this my post will be ninjaed or quickly proceeded by Astra making pro-circumcision comments.
I'd just like to say that I've seen this amusing argument pop up on other sites as well, on numerous occasions, and only within the last year or so. So I guess people are just in the mood to fight over what their dick looks like. The time has come for such e-fights.
I'd just like to say that I've seen this amusing argument pop up on other sites as well, on numerous occasions, and only within the last year or so. So I guess people are just in the mood to fight over what their dick looks like. The time has come for such e-fights.
Personally, I'd be happy either way.
But the sheer fact that some people might not be happy with it is already enough reason to stop infant circumcision.
Has anyone seen the old Daily Show clip of the club who tries to make their foreskin "grow back?"
A bunch of gross looking guys attaching weights to their penises; lamenting to Beth Littleford about how their parents "mutilated" them so long ago. It really made them come off as complete silly geese. Just about what this thread is making most people come off as.
So the actual existence of people who didn't want to be circumcised but were forced to do so anyway is justification for infant circumcisions for you?
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
Why don't you point me out to the whargarbll on this thread.
I mean, the stuff not coming from pro-circ people of course.
BECAUSE IT'S THEIR KID YOU SILLY GOOSE!!! You don't get to make decisions for other people's kids!! OMFG!!!
Again, pretty much the first page. Regardless of the fact that it was 24 pages ago it's still the first thing most new comers to the thread will read and the OP doesn't set a good pretext for the entire thread.
This is, unfortunately, something we'll have to deal with if we choose to keep discussing in this thread.
Quid: I missed the part where Astra is actually advocating Pro-circumcision. Is he?
Being Jewish, it's a tad offensive being told a sacred tradition is akin to mutilation. On the other hand, saying that it "has" to be done in order to avoid some sort of penispariah situation is equally as ridiculous.
Being Jewish, it's a tad offensive being told a sacred tradition is akin to mutilation.
I think that's a really nice demonstration of the power of religion to make people believe stupid things. It took me a fair few conversations with my girlfriend to get her to come around to the idea that it might not be a good idea to cut a piece off of a baby just because it's what her parents would have done. I mean, seriously?
I can also only imagine the conversation that took place when she told them I was uncircumcised (which apparently was uncomfortably early in our relationship).
I think it's pretty obvious circumcision does affect sensitivity. If I fastened my forskin back and walked around like that all day I'd look like I'd shit myself, it would be really uncomfortable.
I've seen people try to say if you think circumcision is mutilation then you must think getting a tattoo or piercing is a mutilation. To that theres a pretty simple responce. If someone held me down and gave me a tattoo without my consent I would consider myself to have had a mutilation inflicted upon me. If however I got that tattoo by choice then no it isn't. It's the same with circumcision, if a consenting adult chooses to have it done that's their choice. Inflicting it on a child is completely wrong.
How can the removal for no real reason of a part of your body nature intended to be there be anything other than mutilation? It would seem to be a textbook example to me. Now of course objectively speaking it isn't as bad as female circumcision but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.
There seems to be no real reason to get it removed (excluding being Jewish). The hygiene argument is ridiculous, for those of us who wash more than once or twice a month the chance of getting an infection are extremely remote. At least way less than the chance of having a botched surgery.
The pleasing women argument is ridiculous too, it's like saying "I like women with big boobs therefore all women with boobs smaller than a C cup should get implants to suit my preference". If it wasn't perceived as a social norm in the US no women would care about it, and frankly any woman shallow enough to reject a guy because he has a foreskin isn't worth bothering with anyway.
Quid hit the nail on the head with this debate early on. Not having it done and wanting it is easily solved. Having it done against your will and regretting it later is not. Sorry about the rambling collection of thoughts on the issue.
Quid hit the nail on the head with this debate early on. Not having it done and wanting it is easily solved. Having it done against your will and regretting it later is not. Sorry about the rambling collection of thoughts on the issue.
TL;DR I agree with Quid.
I too, agree with Quid.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
It does seem that the heat of the debate largely boils down to post fact justification, by people who had no control over the event. Which is ok I guess, as there are plenty of other silly hings that people or groups have to justify to themselves and others, if they feel motivated.
One thing to note is that the the tradition can change rather quickly - my father's generation in NZ, from what he has told me, seems to have a much higher rate of circumcision than their children do. My father being of the generation of children born to WW1 and WW2 vets. From what he has told me, very few of his friends, so far as he knows (and he certainly hasn't done any sort of study) were not cut. Yet they chose not to follow through for their children. So for my generation (and similar) I don't think I know any male friends from back home who are cut. Why is this? I have no idea, but it is what it is
Well it's a point that's as valid as it is obvious, Quid was just the first to make it.
The problem came when a bunch of guys who had been cut at birth came in and basically said "well it was done to me and I don't have a problem with it so it must be fine".
You could say that he was...cut from a different cloth then the rest of us.
Pretty sure I already won pun of the thread when Zampano asked for an example of someone circumcised who wished he hadn't been, and that person posted in the thread, and Zampano dismissed him as being an abnormal outlier...
If you've never experienced having it, then why do you think you would have eventually wanted to get rid of it?
Indeed. While everyone is different I find it hard to believe that an adult male, without religious need or medical emergency who lives in a place or situation where medical care is easily advisable, would come to the decision that they'd spend the time, effort and pain for such a cosmetic surgical operation
The being weirded out by foreskins I honestly don't understand, as a woman. I experienced more shell-shock seeing my first white penis than I did seeing my first uncircumcised penis (and I was well into adulthood by the time I saw my first uncircumcised penis). I got over it, without any mental gymnastics or trauma.
Penises look ridiculous when flaccid, anyway, and when erect the foreskin rolls back so circ'ed and un-circ'ed look the same.
Right, but I take it you live in a place where circumcision is deemed normal, so women would expect to see such. In a place (like where I live) where it isn't the norm, then I suspect that women's preferences would reflect that
Also my wife has had both and doesn't like the way uncut men feel
And since I married her, I probably would have had it done for her benefit at some point
See, people having preferences, I get. And "fine", if you want to get the surgery done if you think it'll increase the chances of getting with someone you want to get with (as opposed to writing them off). It seems no different to me than being squicked out because a guy's dick curves toward his belly, or to the right. You have the right to be squicked by that, I guess, but if the penis works as expected I wouldn't want anybody to feel the need to have surgery to "fix" its appearance.
Today in the US we have women getting surgery to trim their labia back because they don't look like porn stars and "some guys don't like that". I would place that squarely in the "getting circumcised because some chicks don't dig the foreskin" category. I.e. ridiculous.
Posts
All the whargarbll in this thread is making it sound like removing the foreskin is equal to lopping off the glans or removing a testicle.
That's nice.
Maybe you could finally offer up a reason why it's necessary to preform medically unnecessary, irreversible surgery on someone's penis since it clearly doesn't matter either way yet, later on in life, some people do end up caring and have zero recourse?
Why don't you point me out to the whargarbll on this thread.
I mean, the stuff not coming from pro-circ people of course.
Again, pretty much the first page. Regardless of the fact that it was 24 pages ago it's still the first thing most new comers to the thread will read and the OP doesn't set a good pretext for the entire thread.
This is, unfortunately, something we'll have to deal with if we choose to keep discussing in this thread.
Quid: I missed the part where Astra is actually advocating Pro-circumcision. Is he?
He could be on the fence then not really caring one way or another and just commenting on his impressions of the thread and giving his opinion. There are several view points he could be taking.
Of course, now that I've said this my post will be ninjaed or quickly proceeded by Astra making pro-circumcision comments.
Personally, I'd be happy either way.
But the sheer fact that some people might not be happy with it is already enough reason to stop infant circumcision.
I do, when it angers me.
You just have to be careful it doesn't spit back.
Being Jewish, it's a tad offensive being told a sacred tradition is akin to mutilation. On the other hand, saying that it "has" to be done in order to avoid some sort of penispariah situation is equally as ridiculous.
I find the whole thread sort of comical.
I think that's a really nice demonstration of the power of religion to make people believe stupid things. It took me a fair few conversations with my girlfriend to get her to come around to the idea that it might not be a good idea to cut a piece off of a baby just because it's what her parents would have done. I mean, seriously?
I can also only imagine the conversation that took place when she told them I was uncircumcised (which apparently was uncomfortably early in our relationship).
I've seen people try to say if you think circumcision is mutilation then you must think getting a tattoo or piercing is a mutilation. To that theres a pretty simple responce. If someone held me down and gave me a tattoo without my consent I would consider myself to have had a mutilation inflicted upon me. If however I got that tattoo by choice then no it isn't. It's the same with circumcision, if a consenting adult chooses to have it done that's their choice. Inflicting it on a child is completely wrong.
How can the removal for no real reason of a part of your body nature intended to be there be anything other than mutilation? It would seem to be a textbook example to me. Now of course objectively speaking it isn't as bad as female circumcision but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.
There seems to be no real reason to get it removed (excluding being Jewish). The hygiene argument is ridiculous, for those of us who wash more than once or twice a month the chance of getting an infection are extremely remote. At least way less than the chance of having a botched surgery.
The pleasing women argument is ridiculous too, it's like saying "I like women with big boobs therefore all women with boobs smaller than a C cup should get implants to suit my preference". If it wasn't perceived as a social norm in the US no women would care about it, and frankly any woman shallow enough to reject a guy because he has a foreskin isn't worth bothering with anyway.
Quid hit the nail on the head with this debate early on. Not having it done and wanting it is easily solved. Having it done against your will and regretting it later is not. Sorry about the rambling collection of thoughts on the issue.
TL;DR I agree with Quid.
Christ...are you that desperate and grasping at straws??? I'm pro choice, not pro-circ. The hyperbole in this thread is astounding
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
How am I displaying any desperation here? You don't see me writing in Caps Locks.
And your posts certainly don't showcase personal choice (of the person whose dick is in question).
I too, agree with Quid.
The thread was dead the moment it was pointed out that you can choose to have it done later if you want it 8(
But I do agree with everything he's said.
One thing to note is that the the tradition can change rather quickly - my father's generation in NZ, from what he has told me, seems to have a much higher rate of circumcision than their children do. My father being of the generation of children born to WW1 and WW2 vets. From what he has told me, very few of his friends, so far as he knows (and he certainly hasn't done any sort of study) were not cut. Yet they chose not to follow through for their children. So for my generation (and similar) I don't think I know any male friends from back home who are cut. Why is this? I have no idea, but it is what it is
The problem came when a bunch of guys who had been cut at birth came in and basically said "well it was done to me and I don't have a problem with it so it must be fine".
Pretty sure I already won pun of the thread when Zampano asked for an example of someone circumcised who wished he hadn't been, and that person posted in the thread, and Zampano dismissed him as being an abnormal outlier...
...And I replied "No True Cut-man?"
Always strange to hear that it is so common over there
You know, before it grew too large.
Should really have been snipped after 6 or 7 pages.
Someone should have fore-seen what it would have turned into.
Moderators absolutely have the moral authority to trim away at useless crap in threads like this without checking with the posters first.
etc.
This is totally acceptable.
Freedom of expression should be absolute. Say no to censor-snip!
In fact, I'm pretty sure I would have wanted it done eventually anyway so yay thanks mom and dad for getting it done before I can remember, I guess
Indeed. While everyone is different I find it hard to believe that an adult male, without religious need or medical emergency who lives in a place or situation where medical care is easily advisable, would come to the decision that they'd spend the time, effort and pain for such a cosmetic surgical operation
Also he seemed to have trouble with keeping it clean, yes I'm aware that's an aberration
I realize that uncircumcised penises are "normal" but it seems like there is a not-insignificant number of females who prefer cut men
And since I married her, I probably would have had it done for her benefit at some point
Penises look ridiculous when flaccid, anyway, and when erect the foreskin rolls back so circ'ed and un-circ'ed look the same.
I've actually met people who go apeshit on me when this topic comes up and I mention that I like my penis circumcised just fine
They are the silliest of geese
See, people having preferences, I get. And "fine", if you want to get the surgery done if you think it'll increase the chances of getting with someone you want to get with (as opposed to writing them off). It seems no different to me than being squicked out because a guy's dick curves toward his belly, or to the right. You have the right to be squicked by that, I guess, but if the penis works as expected I wouldn't want anybody to feel the need to have surgery to "fix" its appearance.
Today in the US we have women getting surgery to trim their labia back because they don't look like porn stars and "some guys don't like that". I would place that squarely in the "getting circumcised because some chicks don't dig the foreskin" category. I.e. ridiculous.