• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lionheart1337 said:
I`m sure, right after you're done killing each other because god said so.
.

I don't know why you are trying to say with American Jews and Muslims want to kill each other. Considering the challenge to this suit was filed jointly by Jewish and Muslim families. Multiculturalism works in this country.:)
 

JackEtc

Member
Monocle said:
The main issue, at least for me, is one of consent. My position is simple: don't permanently modify an important part of someone's body unless they give their informed consent, barring a medical emergency. What you do with your todger once you're old enough to make rational decisions about it is totally up to you. Chop that fucker right off and use it as a snorkel for all I care.
Well, by the time they CAN have consent, they will say no, for two reasons.

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, they've had an uncircumcised penis for however many years, they won't want it changed. BUT, they wont want it changed mostly because of reason #2.

2. IT'LL HURT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
InnerFu said:
I could say the same for all the people comparing actual genital mutilation with the snipping of a foreskin.

Mutilate from the Latin Mutilatus 'To cut off'. By definition, both from the origin to conventional usage, this definition of mutilation fits.

Any discomfort the definition gives should really be a cause against the act than the re-categorization of it.

Even the WHO in it's definition of Female Genital Mutilation leaves the following:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

"or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons".

"Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area."
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Except it's not so you bullshit strawman argument isn't terribly useful.

It's quite apt actually. Because you 'have a horse in this race' you aren't able accept that the two aren't equivalent based solely on 'tradition'.
 

Monocle

Member
JackEtc said:
Well, by the time they CAN have consent, they will say no, for two reasons.

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, they've had an uncircumcised penis for however many years, they won't want it changed. BUT, they wont want it changed mostly because of reason #2.

2. IT'LL HURT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER.
I've read of guys who got circumcised for their girlfriends. People modify their bodies for all sorts of reasons; aesthetic, cultural, and so on. As for the pain issue, babies feel it too. But in any case, you can be anesthetized for the procedure.
 
So, has anyone brought up any logical and objective arguments--that do not fall back on preserving a "tradition"--as for why the circumcision of infants should still be acceptable? Besides "looks better" and "dick cheese", I mean. I ask for I am genuinely curious, and I wish no undue disrespect.
 
Sutton Dagger said:
It's quite apt actually. Because you 'have a horse in this race' you aren't able accept that the two aren't equivalent based solely on 'tradition'.
No, one has health benefits and has been backed up by studies done by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and is recommended by the WHO and the other hasn't.
 

kehs

Banned
Necromanti said:
So, has anyone brought up any logical and objective arguments--that do not fall back on preserving a "tradition"--as for why the circumcision of infants should still be acceptable? Besides "looks better" and "dick cheese", I mean. I ask for I am genuinely curious, and I wish no undue disrespect.

It's hurts/will be remembered later completes the trifecta.
 

jaxword

Member
JackEtc said:
Well, by the time they CAN have consent, they will say no, for two reasons.

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, they've had an uncircumcised penis for however many years, they won't want it changed. BUT, they wont want it changed mostly because of reason #2.

2. IT'LL HURT LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER.

I can 100% attest to this. Being cut was the most painful thing I ever experienced in my entire life, and this was under massive painkillers. It was a month's worth of pain for (mainly) vanity reasons.

Lesson learned: cosmetic surgery is never necessary. This is also why I do not encourage any form of cosmetic surgery in women, either. Natural is better, be proud of what God gave you--men and women.
 

Orayn

Member
Necromanti said:
So, has anyone brought up any logical and objective arguments--that do not fall back on preserving a "tradition"--as for why the circumcision of infants should still be acceptable? Besides "looks better" and "dick cheese", I mean. I ask for I am genuinely curious, and I wish no undue disrespect.
I've been trying to focus on the ethical questions for the entire thread, but name-calling, arguing over semantics, emotionally charged dickbattles are so much more exciting, y'know?
 

daw840

Member
Monocle said:
Why not? Isn't a tattoo less drastic than an amputation? Also, it would make a wonderful conversation piece.

I have a $100 bill tattooed on my dick, that way my wife can blow a hundred bucks any time she wants.
 

Jin34

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Not I never said faith, I said heritage, I'm not arguing God is telling me what to do.

I don't think heritage/tradition for it's own sake is a vaild reason to keep doing something like this, but I get where you are coming from on this particular ballot proposition after the anti-semetic Foreskin man comic.
 
jaxword said:
I can 100% attest to this. Being cut was the most painful thing I ever experienced in my entire life, and this was under massive painkillers. It was a month's worth of pain for (mainly) vanity reasons.

Lesson learned: cosmetic surgery is never necessary. This is also why I do not encourage any form of cosmetic surgery in women, either. Natural is better, be proud of what God gave you--men and women.

Lesson learned: Don't be lazy and choose surgery when you don't need too.
 

Acerac

Banned
Why don't we just make it so all cosmetic modifications are allowed to be done on infants if the parents deem it so?

It'd be awesome to get a bitchin' tattoo at an age when you're too young to remember the process.
 

JackEtc

Member
Monocle said:
I've read of guys who got circumcised for their girlfriends. People modify their bodies for all sorts of reasons; aesthetic, cultural, and so on. As for the pain issue, babies feel it too. But in any case, you can be anesthetized for the procedure.
Well, not to be fanboyish at ALL, but the looks could be a reason why circumcision is preferred for some.

And yes, babies do feel it, but think about it. You handle your penis (going to the bathroom, masturbation, sex) a lot more than a baby does, and that recovery 5-7 days from circumcision could go really badly if you mess with it (which, like I said, you do much more as a teen/adult.


jaxword said:
I can 100% attest to this. Being cut was the most painful thing I ever experienced in my entire life, and this was under massive painkillers. It was a month's worth of pain for (mainly) vanity reasons.

Lesson learned: cosmetic surgery is never necessary. This is also why I do not encourage any form of cosmetic surgery in women, either. Natural is better, be proud of what God gave you--men and women.
And there we have it.

And Jaxworld, I agree with you about cosmetic surgery (for the most part, extremes may be a different story).
 

jaxword

Member
JackEtc said:
And there we have it.

And Jaxworld, I agree with you about cosmetic surgery (for the most part, extremes may be a different story).

Well, of course, if you have a life-damaging deformity, I'd be reasonable about that.

I just think people need to stop being so insecure about their looks. We don't need to cut off parts of our bodies, we don't need women to shove silicon into their chests, we don't need to jab holes through various body parts. Now, if you WANT to, that's cool, I'm 100% behind the right to choose. But there's no need to FORCE it on people.

I'm sure no one here would approve of giving an infant girl breast implants for her future boyfriend--which is the same reason we don't need to perform cosmetic surgery on boys for their future girlfriends.

We all just need less judgment and more pride in being natural, you know? :)
 
Ulairi said:
Uncut guys are jealous and out to prove that they are better. If they'd just shut the fuck up and let people do what they wish, it wouldn't be an issue. But, this is America and there is big money in telling other people how to live and raise their families.

You know, this is one of the biggest things I read in this debate between cut and uncut. On top of this, since when has this debate boiled down to just the aesthetics of a dick? There is much more than that.

Wikipedia foreskin and frenulum. Then try and imagine you had them both, you can't if it was taken away at birth. Therefore, I stand by my claim that I feel sorry for those who lost them at birth. Because they will never truly experience what it's like to ... "Make love".

Oh and the obligatory "Have fun with your dried up looking prawn".
 

numble

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
No, one has health benefits and has been backed up by studies done by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and is recommended by the WHO and the other hasn't.
As an effort to reduce HIV infection amongst those who refuse to use condoms.
 

JackEtc

Member
jaxword said:
Well, of course, if you have a life-damaging deformity, I'd be reasonable about that.

I just think people need to stop being so insecure about their looks. We don't need to cut off parts of our bodies, we don't need women to shove silicon into their chests, we don't need to jab holes through various body parts. Now, if you WANT to, that's cool, I'm 100% behind the right to choose.

But man, we all just need less judgment and more pride in being natural, you know? :)
Although I personally am circumcised, I do agree with you about the rest. To agree with you about no circumcision would be some meta self-hate shit. I don't care which route people take their penises though.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Not I never said faith, I said heritage, I'm not arguing God is telling me what to do.

I don't see why you so adamantly try to separate the two, they're siamese baby!

Although if you can separate a baby from his weiner skin im sure you can separate faith and heritage.
 
A friend of mine was incorrectly circumcised. Now, his dick can't really get properly sensitive at the end because of some nerve damage, so he was literally gimped for life before he was even able to stand. Another person I know was over circumcised, which caused all sorts of problems.

I however, am uncircumcised, and I don't see what the whole big deal for even doing it is.

I don't see how it's any more hygienic. You wash, you know....like a normal person.
I'd have assumed having the membrane of the penis permanently exposed at all times would be worse for a person. Being uncircumcised means your penis is prone to direct contact damage, i.e; getting hit in the groin can directly hurt the penis head and cause serious pain and injury. Bugs and ants crawling up your shorts can have direct access to attack it. Certainly not ideal if it's some sort of flesh eating thing or a tick.

Besides, you get a boner, you go to have sex,and it looks no different than a circumcised penis anyway, once it all rolls back.

Unless of course your one of those idiot pussy kids who never rolled it back to clean it as a kid and as a result, it can't stretch when your an adult (which in many cases, restricts penis growth) and you've got a permanent ant eater thing. That sucks, but you can fix that by a slow couple years of stretching it back daily.

The whole "cheesedick" thing comes from those same idiot kids who never washed. That thing is your responsibility to wash and keep in working order.

The foreskin also serves as extra contraception in unprotected sex. The skin when forward (I don't do that, personally, It restricts the size of the head of the penis a little) during sex acts as a kind of "silencer" for the "payload" so it merely dribbles out, rather than shoots out causing babies.

The extra skin rolling back causes extra girth around the rest of the penis, too.
Every bit of extra girth counts much more than length. Women prefer even an extra teensy bit of girth, to extra inches of length.
Actually, girls would prefer a whole lot more girth than any penis on the planet can deliver, no penis can truly and ultimately satisfy a woman in that regard. It'd literally have to be as wide as a can of air spray, by the data shown in several studies. Still, having a bit of extra counts for alot.

Why is the thing even there anyway? Surely in our years of "evolution" since all this snip snip began, we'd start being born without this thing eventually right?

Why not cut off all our other "useless" body parts.

I personally think removing it removes all responsibility your child has over the thing. It's meant to be a looked after tool, not some "always ready to plow wenches" unsheathed sword.

Also, masturbation feels way better with it.

tl;dr, the foreskin is there for a reason. Leave it the fuck on, let people decide later if they find it better for them to have it off, and be a responsible parent and make your kid wash the fucking thing. At least that way you can ensure his dick will fucking work properly and not by some chance misaligned snip from some idiot doctor that fucks the rest of your sexual life.

Also, mandatory jewishrabivampiredeatheaterforeskin.jpg
 

daw840

Member
There are gross changes in the penis’s microbiome following circumcision, suggesting that shifts in the bacterial environment could account, in part, for the differences in HIV infection. Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men, these bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect.

Read more at: http://www.homorazzi.com/article/ci...transmission-hpv-foreskin-aids/#ixzz1TdoHuA9o

Sounds like good enough reason for me.
 

numble

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
And to reduce certain types of cancer among women.
Giving each female an HPV vaccine at birth will solve that problem more easily than circumcising all males at birth.
 
It's a little surprising to see how invested both sides are on this issue. Why don't you keep your nose out of the dicks of others children? You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter but making something like this law is fucking stupid. It's also not at all surprising that it's coming out of San Fransisco.
 

Jin34

Member
Copernicus said:
I would never do it because then she'd never be able to have an orgasm again.

I just can't even imagine the sheer audacity of a girl asking her boyfriend to cut a part of his dick for her. I'd just give her the same look Robert Baratheon gave Cersei after she insulted him following the slap.
 
^HA

IsntChrisL said:
It's a little surprising to see how invested both sides are on this issue. Why don't you keep your nose out of the dicks of others children? You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter but making something like this law is fucking stupid. It's also not at all surprising that it's coming out of San Fransisco.

So don't give newborn children any rights. Gotcha.
 

numble

Member
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Having democracy in China would be nice too, but that's not happening any time soon either.
Wait, you think making HPV vaccines readily available in Africa is as hard as bringing democracy to China? Talk about false equivalency.
 
Jin34 said:
I was wondering why you were so rabid in this thread.
The best part is that the only way society truly evolves is to change its traditions. This will become one of them, whether Manos likes it or not.
 

daw840

Member
IsntChrisL said:
It's a little surprising to see how invested both sides are on this issue. Why don't you keep your nose out of the dicks of others children? You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter but making something like this law is fucking stupid. It's also not at all surprising that it's coming out of San Fransisco.


Right. I was called an idiot for advocating no helmet laws while riding a motorcycle, yet this is something that will reduce the risk of HIV transmission and people are completely of the opposite mind on it. A little perspective.

In 2008, 16,084 people died from AIDS. In 2008, 5,312 people died on MC crashes.
 

rkn

Member
Isn't this some sort of self fulfilling prophecy, I mean all the cut dudes are less likely to want sex, because according to uncut gaf you know it doesn't feel as good, so eventually they will stop procreating and die out.
 

Acerac

Banned
IsntChrisL said:
It's a little surprising to see how invested both sides are on this issue. Why don't you keep your nose out of the dicks of others children? You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter but making something like this law is fucking stupid. It's also not at all surprising that it's coming out of San Fransisco.
Perhaps everyone should keep their noses out of dicks that aren't their own?

Unless it is consensual, of course. =o
 

Monocle

Member
Necromanti said:
So, has anyone brought up any logical and objective arguments--that do not fall back on preserving a "tradition"--as for why the circumcision of infants should still be acceptable? Besides "looks better" and "dick cheese", I mean. I ask for I am genuinely curious, and I wish no undue disrespect.
The science is inconclusive.

- Some studies suggest that circumcision can substantially reduce penile sensitivity, and there is anecdotal evidence to back that up, but some men report minimal loss of sensitivity.

- Circumcision may reduce one's chances of contracting certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, but evidence toward this conclusion has been challenged by some scientists.

- On the question of hygiene, circumcision offers minor advantages. Uncircumcised boys tend to develop inflammatory conditions at a higher rate, which can be effectively treated with topical creams. Regular bathing reduces one's risk for obvious reasons.

- Preventative circumcision (meant to avert phimosis, a condition that prevents retraction of the foreskin) is unnecessary, as the sheath tends to separate from the underlying flesh on its own by the end of adolescence. A minor surgery can usually correct a nonrectractile foreskin in the event that it causes discomfort or obstructs urinary flow.

In short, no, there's no compelling objective reason for circumcision of infants to be standard.
 
IsntChrisL said:
Rights? A newborn can't sign off on any medical procedure that may improve his/her health down the road. Circumcision is no different.
Exactly my point. I don't see where the health argument comes from and I'd rather not get into it but I`m sure many uncut dudes can tell you they aren't dying because of their anteaters
 

Atrus

Gold Member
IsntChrisL said:
It's a little surprising to see how invested both sides are on this issue. Why don't you keep your nose out of the dicks of others children? You're entitled to your own opinion on the matter but making something like this law is fucking stupid. It's also not at all surprising that it's coming out of San Fransisco.

Children are NOT the property of their parents. This isn't a personal belief, this is rooted in the secular laws of civilized nations where parents are custodians not owners.

If instead of circumcision, parents choose to tattoo their children, this should be okay? Of course not. Parents who did this violate two laws. One against unlicensed tattooing (because tattooing children gets it revoked) and another against tattooing children. To believe that we should not prosecute ignores the fact that we operate as part of a society.

Another aspect of law is consistency. It is 'fucking stupid' to send people to jail when they practice genital pricking on girls but do absolutely nothing when full-blown excision is done on boys, solely because of religious special pleading.
 

Acerac

Banned
IsntChrisL said:
That's more of a challenge for most, I suspect.
Hence the law.

Is it your penis? If yes, do whatever you want to it.

If no, double check with whoever's penis it is before cutting off part of it.

Seems fair.
 

jaxword

Member
Acerac said:
Hence the law.

Is it your penis? If yes, do whatever you want to it.

If no, double check with whoever's penis it is before cutting off part of it.

Seems fair.

This seems perfectly reasonable to me. There doesn't appear to be a conclusive, rational argument for taking away the choice (other than religion/belief, which is something we shouldn't touch in this debate).
 
Lionheart1337 said:
Exactly my point. I don't see where the health argument comes from and I'd rather not get into it but I`m sure many uncut dudes can tell you they aren't dying because of their anteaters

So because you "don't see where the health argument comes from" it should be completely ignored? Not being circumcised is not a death sentence, but you should hopefully be able to concede that there are benefits to the procedure.

Atrus said:
Children are NOT the property of their parents. This isn't a personal belief, this is rooted in the secular laws of civilized nations where parents are custodians not owners.

If instead of circumcision, parents choose to tattoo their children, this should be okay? Of course not. Parents who did this violate two laws. One against unlicensed tattooing (because tattooing children gets it revoked) and another against tattooing children. To believe that we should not prosecute ignores the fact that we operate as part of a society.

Another aspect of law is consistency. It is 'fucking stupid' to send people to jail when they practice genital pricking on girls but do absolutely nothing when full-blown excision is done on boys, solely because of religious special pleading.

Whoa, cowboy, you're going past the threshold I'm willing to argue about today. Just because parents do not "own" there children, they are allowed to make decisions in regard to their health because the child is unable to do so. The only real argument then could be whether or not you believe circumcision is beneficial to one's health/hygiene. So far, the research favors the former. I'm not going off telling people to circumcise their kids. I'm just saying stop telling others how to handle the matter.
 

Acerac

Banned
jaxword said:
This seems perfectly reasonable to me. There doesn't appear to be a conclusive, rational argument for taking away the choice (other than religion/belief, which is something we shouldn't touch in this debate).
Well the reason they would take the choice away from the parents is because it is not actually their penis that they are cutting off a part of.

If babies were considered possessions of parents then sure, let them do whatever they want to their children. Let them give their infants botox like that one lady did. However that isn't the case.
 

News Bot

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Not I never said faith, I said heritage, I'm not arguing God is telling me what to do.

Just as meaningless.

The only people who honestly need circumcised are those with abnormally tight foreskin and dirty ass motherfuckers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom