Support NeoGAF

[IsntChrisL]

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.

Actually that was an auto-fellatio joke, but sure, I'll entertain this argument.

I'd actually be interested to see if we did put such a law into effect. We could see rather quickly how much disease/infections rise or don't rise.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Actually that was an auto-fellatio joke, but sure, I'll entertain this thought.

I'd actually be interested to see if we did put such a law into effect. We could see rather quickly how much disease/infections rise or don't rise.

Only we don't need to. The world doesn't end with the US and there are many societies where cutting is not the norm. They seem to be doing just fine.

 

[BertramCooper]

And I still don't follow your last phrase. "supposed solution" = circumcision. "to something that's not a serious problem or a significant public health issue." = irrelevant ?

How is it irrelevant? If you're going to pass a law, presumably it's because of a widespread problem. For the life of me, I can't see a problem here.

 

[Monocle]

Well, not to be fanboyish at ALL, but the looks could be a reason why circumcision is preferred for some.

Very much to my point. And it's a legitimate choice for consenting adults.

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.

While it's true that teens and adults use their equipment more than babies, that's not the only factor in the development of complications. Infection is an issue. Improper healing too. Human error is rare, but when a mistake is made, the consequences can handicap a patient for life.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Only we don't need to. The world doesn't end with the US and there are many societies where cutting is not the norm. They seem to be doing just fine.

Thank you for this revelation. I'm more interested in seeing a mirrored image of the US with this law enforced. Not another country. They don't replicate who we are as a people or what we do. Who are these countries by the way (with a similar law intact) and define "just fine."

 

[Acerac]

Actually that was an auto-fellatio joke, but sure, I'll entertain this argument.

I'd actually be interested to see if we did put such a law into effect. We could see rather quickly how much disease/infections rise or don't rise.

Kinky! Missing out on that is more of a shame than missing out on foreskin!



In all seriousness, can't we just look at all the countries where it is rare to have circumcision and pull data from them?

*edit*

OK somebody made that point and it was responded to before I made my post. Whatever.

Why do we need a mirror image? Why not compare the 50% of children who have the surgery to the 50% who don't? Haven't we already done that with inconclusive results?

 

[IsntChrisL]

Kinky! Missing out on that is more of a shame than missing out on foreskin!



In all seriousness, can't we just look at all the countries where it is rare to have circumcision and pull data from them?

We could, but only if they have similar disease problems and habits as the US.

*edit*
OK somebody made that point and it was responded to before I made my post. Whatever.

Why do we need a mirror image? Why not compare the 50% of children who have the surgery to the 50% who don't? Haven't we already done that with inconclusive results?

I remember reading that the sensitivity results were inconclusive, but less so the hygiene results. As far as I can tell those skew in favor of circumcision.

 

[JackEtc]

Very much to my point. And it's a legitimate choice for consenting adults.


While it's true that teens and adults use their equipment more than babies, that's not the only factor in the development of complications. Infection is an issue. Improper healing too. Human error is rare, but when a mistake is made, the consequences can handicap a patient for life.

Handling it more can cause an infection though. And after the no fap thread, I think we can all agree that not "handling" it for an extended amount of time is no fun at all.

 

[Atrus]

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.

The research is subjective. In fact, the medical professions of a number of Western nations do not approve of routine circumcisions on infants. This is why circumcisions are a minority in the Western world and declining. 2/3rds of Canadian men are not circumcised and a vastly larger percentage in Europe are not.

Even if you were to argue that it should be done on a medical basis, it is not logically consistent with the way we treat all other forms of potential ailments. We do not perform appendectomies or tonsillectomies on a mandatory basis in the event that they potentially become infected or inflamed.

Typically, surgery is the last recourse for treatment. Optioning it as the first recourse is not common practice and the only methodology that people present as to why it should be 'different' is largely nonsensical ones about religion or tradition.

 

[jaxword]

I remember reading that the sensitivity results were inconclusive, but less so the hygiene results. As far as I can tell those skew in favor of circumcision.

Would you consider personal, honest experience useful towards your opinion?

 

[InnerFu]

What is this "actual" mutilation you speak of? You can fancy it up all you want. It's pure mutilation at the core. Remove the layers of pretentiousness and that's what you're left with. Mutilation.

Its like when people try to compare gays wanting to be legally married to blacks escaping slavery. The term genital mutilation stems from atrocities much darker than any circumcision that's taken place in the United States. Its just frustrating seeing people throw the term out there to try and gain favor for their cause. There are tons of good arguments for banning circumcision. Trying to pass it off as tortuous of mutilating isn't one of them.

 

[Monocle]

Handling it more can cause an infection though. And after the no fap thread, I think we can all agree that not "handling" it for an extended amount of time is no fun at all.

I think you're being very insensitive to masochist-GAF. People who like having wounded dongs have feelings too!

 

[Acerac]

We could, but only if they have similar disease problems and habits as the US.

I remember reading that the sensitivity results were inconclusive, but less so the hygiene results. As far as I can tell those skew in favor of circumcision.

There was somebody who posted earlier in this behemoth of a thread that said he was circumcised as an adult and the difference was palpable.

I think teaching kids to clean their penis is a better solution to the hygiene problem than cutting a piece of it off. I will however admit that chopping off a part of your body is easier in the long run than cleaning it.

 

[IsntChrisL]

The research is subjective. In fact, the medical professions of a number of Western nations do not approve of routine circumcisions on infants. This is why circumcisions are a minority in the Western world and declining. 2/3rds of Canadian men are not circumcised and a vastly larger percentage in Europe are not.

Even if you were to argue that it should be done on a medical basis, it is not logically consistent with the way we treat all other forms of potential ailments. We do not perform appendectomies or tonsillectomies on a mandatory basis in the event that they potentially become infected or inflamed.

Typically, surgery is the last recourse for treatment. Optioning it as the first recourse is not common practice and the only methodology that people present as to why it should be 'different' is largely nonsensical ones about religion or tradition.

I suppose an interesting way to look at this would be to ask the men who were circumcised at birth were happy with their parents decision and publish the results.

Also, circumcision is not "routine" as the option is still given. Albeit not to the child. I keep hearing the argument that compares the surgery to much bigger operations. At that age, no matter the surgery, the child will not be offering his input. If it were a case of circumcision actually doing real damage to kids on a regular basis, I'd be all for this. But whether the outspoken want to label it inconclusive or not, the research still favors circumcision at this point.

There was somebody who posted earlier in this behemoth of a thread that said he was circumcised as an adult and the difference was palpable.

I think teaching kids to clean their penis is a better solution to the hygiene problem than cutting a piece of it off. I will however admit that chopping off a part of your body is easier in the long run than cleaning it.

Well, this really goes beyond what the doctor will ever see and that's how people raise their kids.

 

[JackEtc]

I think you're being very insensitive to masochist-GAF. People who like having wounded dongs have feelings too!

That made me crack up, well played Monocle.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Would you consider personal, honest experience useful towards your opinion?

Sure, but not as a definitive answer. One person does not = everyone. Sensitivity isn't really what I'm arguing about here anyway.

EDIT: I actually believe that it would reduce sensitivity to some extent.

 

[Holmes]

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.

Are you saying... circumcised men create circumcised babies?

 

[Atrus]

I suppose an interesting way to look at this would be to ask the men who were circumcised at birth were happy with their parents decision and publish the results.

Also, circumcision is not "routine" as the option is still given. Albeit not to the child. I keep hearing the argument that compares the surgery to much bigger operations. At that age, no matter the surgery, the child will not be offering his input. If it were a case of circumcision actually doing real damage to kids on a regular basis, I'd be all for this. But whether the outspoken want to label it inconclusive or not, the research still favors circumcision at this point.

Well, this really goes beyond what the doctor will ever see and that's how people raise their kids.

The fact of the matter remains that we ban all other forms of body modification on infants, and that the vast majority of these elective surgeries are done without any medical necessity.

What you seem to forget is that surgeries are a risk, a life threatening one regardless of the type of surgery, one that most medical practitioners opt to minimize. In fact, similar measures in any capacity, when used on girls is deemed to be a violation of human rights conventions.

There is NO medical necessity for such a procedure and this procedure is NOT practiced in most of the Western world and this has resulted in no negative impact on health.

Parents should therefore NOT be given the option to participate in such activities in the exact same method we outlaw the option to participate in any other form of purposeless mutilation.

 

[jaxword]

Sure, but not as a definitive answer. One person does not = everyone. Sensitivity isn't really what I'm arguing about here anyway.

EDIT: I actually believe that it would reduce sensitivity to some extent.

Fair enough. I can, without prejudice towards either side, say that I've experienced both uncut and cut and there is a reduction of sensitivity--but it's not immediate. It's been slowly degrading over the years since I've had it done. It may plateau out, but I doubt it, given how skin, and the drying effects of age and keratinization.

I am not the only man who attests to this--but as this is an extremely sensitive issue, and we've long established almost ALL men will never admit to their organs being imperfect, getting truthful testimonials is extremely hard.

 

[Melchiah]

Let me ask you a question, can you circumcised people masturbate without a lubricant? And if do it dry, will the friction irritate your skin?

If you can't masturbate without a lubricant, it isn't natural. Simple as that.

 

[Lionheart1337]

^Funny because that was one of the many justifications for circumcision. Little boys could not masturbate, because the church deemed it self-abuse or something.

Its like when people try to compare gays wanting to be legally married to blacks escaping slavery. The term genital mutilation stems from atrocities much darker than any circumcision that's taken place in the United States. Its just frustrating seeing people throw the term out there to try and gain favor for their cause. There are tons of good arguments for banning circumcision. Trying to pass it off as tortuous of mutilating isn't one of them.

The little girl in Africa getting her beef curtains trimmed is, in essence the same thing as the modern circumcision here.

Both are typically done without consent, to people well under age, both hurt like hell, both are removing random parts of genitalia for no better reason than "welp its whatcha gotta do!".

How similar does it need to be for it to be wrong? I guess is my question here. I confess I'd rather be violated gently if I`m going to be violated though. I'd rather be drugged and raped while I`m unconscious than beaten and raped. But in the end of it all, it's still rape, and it's still wrong no?

And although mutilation (I refuse to call it by that which it is not) is wrong in my opinion, my argument hardly can be reduced to trying to pass it off as something tortuous. While it clearly is, my argument doesn't reduce to just that and I believe I've made that clear.

 

[IsntChrisL]

The fact of the matter remains that we ban all other forms of body modification on infants, and that the vast majority of these elective surgeries are done without any medical necessity.

What you seem to forget is that surgeries are a risk, a life threatening one regardless of the type of surgery, one that most medical practitioners opt to minimize. In fact, similar measures in any capacity, when used on girls is deemed to be a violation of human rights conventions.

There is NO medical necessity for such a procedure and this procedure is NOT practiced in most of the Western world and this has resulted in no negative impact on health.

Parents should therefore NOT be given the option to participate in such activities in the exact same method we outlaw the option to participate in any other form of purposeless mutilation.

Well this is where me and you split ways. You are vehemently against the circumcision of children. Your outlook on the whole procedure is much more detrimental than mine. Also, the circumcision of boys is nowhere near the same thing as the circumcision of girls and should not be lumped in with it.

 

[Acerac]

Let me ask you a question, can you circumcised people masturbate without a lubricant? And if do it dry, will the friction irritate your skin?

If you can't masturbate without a lubricant, it isn't natural. Simple as that.

I can masturbate just fine by myself with no discomfort. Hell, it is my preferred way to go, less mess and easier clean up.

It always threw me off when I talked to people who actually needed lubricant. The poor souls.

I still think that lopping off part of an infant's penis would fall under the category of unnatural, however.

 

[JackEtc]

Let me ask you a question, can you circumcised people masturbate without a lubricant? And if do it dry, will the friction irritate your skin?

If you can't masturbate without a lubricant, it isn't natural. Simple as that.

I am circumcised, and I have never masturbated with lubricant.

 

[daw840]

I am circumcised, and I have never masturbated with lubricant.

Does spit count?

 

[JackEtc]

Does spit count?

Never used spit either.

 

[kehs]

I am circumcised, and I have never masturbated with lubricant.

Tears count.

 

[Vorg]

This thread... you can tell who got cut as a kid just by their obviously uninformed "dick cheese" and disease/infection posts. I suppose everyone here showers regularly, right?

 

[JackEtc]

Tears count.

As sad as my sex life is, no tears.

 

[Atrus]

Well this is where me and you split ways. You are vehemently against the circumcision of children. Your outlook on the whole procedure is much more detrimental than mine. Also, the circumcision of boys is nowhere near the same thing as the circumcision of girls and should not be lumped in with it.

"Nowhere near" is irrelevant. As I pointed to before, the definitions used to outline FGM is are so all encompassing by the WHO it refers to any form of non-medically required procedure on the genitals of girls.ALL.

There is a range to what encompasses FGM and all are illegal in the United States. This is inclusive of type 4 genital mutilation known as genital pricking, which is considerably less severe than all forms of male circumcision.

 

[IsntChrisL]

"Nowhere near" is irrelevant. As I pointed to before, the definitions used to outline FGM is are so all encompassing by the WHO it refers to any form of non-medically required procedure on the genitals of girls.ALL.

There is a range to what encompasses FGM and all are illegal in the United States. This is inclusive of type 4 genital mutilation known as genital pricking, which is considerably less severe than all forms of male circumcision.

...o...k? Did I say anything disagreeable to this?

 

[Acerac]

Well, this really goes beyond what the doctor will ever see and that's how people raise their kids.

I guess it comes down to how much control you think parents should have over their kids.

If you think that parents should be able to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery on their children, then circumcision is fine and dandy.

Personally I think that irreversible cosmetic surgery should be up to the person who is being directly impacted by said operation. Neither of us are technically wrong.

I still think it'd be awesome to get a yin-yang on my theoretical infant's chest. He totally wouldn't remember it happening and would pick up all the elementary school chicks with his awesome tattoo. Win-win.

The head of your cock is the most sensitive part. Why would you want to cut off the protective covering? Who in their right mind sees a newborn child and thinks the right thing to do is start hacking away at the genitalia? This is disgusting non-sense from religious wackos. So glad that I avoided getting cut. Love my ultra sensitive mushroom.

This act of mutilation should be outlawed world-wide. It is your fucking dick covering! You wouldn't cut off a woman's labia to leave the clitoris exposed. Really scary how many dudes actually support this. Fucking freaks.

Why bother discussing shit reasonably when you can call the opposition wackos and fucking freaks? It makes me sad when I agree with somebody in theory but the way they present their point makes me unsure if I want to.

Granted the other side is no better.

So this is what a circumcision thread is like. Never participated in one of these before. The reputation is well earned.

 

[HurricaneJesus]

The head of your cock is the most sensitive part. Why would you want to cut off the protective covering? Who in their right mind sees a newborn child and thinks the right thing to do is start hacking away at the genitalia? This is disgusting non-sense from religious wackos. So glad that I avoided getting cut. Love my ultra sensitive mushroom.

This act of mutilation should be outlawed world-wide. It is your fucking dick covering! You wouldn't cut off a woman's labia to leave the clitoris exposed. Really scary how many dudes actually support this. Fucking freaks.

 

[jaxword]

Let me ask you a question, can you circumcised people masturbate without a lubricant? And if do it dry, will the friction irritate your skin?

If you can't masturbate without a lubricant, it isn't natural. Simple as that.

I have to use lube.

There's one thing a lot of people overlook when it comes to circumcision:

Different amounts of foreskin can be left.

In other words, each man can have different "looseness" to their skin depending on where the cut was made. The more "loose" the skin, the less need for lubricant.

 

[soco]

If you think that parents should be able to have unnecessary cosmetic surgery on their children, then circumcision is fine and dandy.

regardless of whose decision you think it should be, there's been enough evidence recently to suggest it's not simply a cosmetic surgery. 3 years ago i'd have agreed, but the newer data actually seems to have some basis. though so long as you put some effort into teaching your kids about sex, it shouldn't matter much.

 

[Cipherr]

You guys are nutjobs, the whole lot of you. Neither side here appears to have all their marbles.

 

[jaxword]

You guys are nutjobs, the whole lot of you. Neither side here appears to have all their marbles.

Could you point out where in my arguments I've given this image? I'm genuinely curious to know where I've gone wrong.

 

[rkn]

Are you saying... circumcised men create circumcised babies?

Joke.

Spoiler

Your Head.

 

[sruckus]

The head of your cock is the most sensitive part. Why would you want to cut off the protective covering? Who in their right mind sees a newborn child and thinks the right thing to do is start hacking away at the genitalia? This is disgusting non-sense from religious wackos. So glad that I avoided getting cut. Love my ultra sensitive mushroom.

This act of mutilation should be outlawed world-wide. It is your fucking dick covering! You wouldn't cut off a woman's labia to leave the clitoris exposed. Really scary how many dudes actually support this. Fucking freaks.

We're not the ones with ugly dicks...

It seriously is so ugly uncut

 

[Sinoox]

Circumcision rates have declined significantly over the years. People are starting to see what circumcision really is; a silly old barbaric practice that has no medical purpose. Really, there's enough evidence to suggest it does more harm than anything remotely beneficial, but that completely goes without saying if you've ever seen a real circumcision being practiced. You destroy thousands of ultra sensitive nerves, permanently scar the organ, dry the glans (killing sensitivity), potentially develop a number of sexual deficiencies and even a botched circumcision!

This is just defense for the defenseless. The whole topic of circumcision is very debatable now, there's a lot we're still trying to find out about the foreskin. We shouldn't allow children to be subject to something like this when there's so much uncertainty now. No, they're not taking away your decision to be circumcised, they're defending people to allow them to be able to make the decision to manipulate their bodies permanently on their own.

Look back at the history of why circumcisions blew up in America. We're no longer that closed minded irrational country, we have no reason to make decisions for other people on matters like this. It's just cruel now with all we know anyways. People need to speak up on these matters a bit more because they're pointlessly taboo, it doesn't get enough attention. The day will still come when circumcision of male children will be outlawed just as female circumcision was. The practice will need to lose grounds though, but that's exactly what's happening now if you look at statistics.

 

[sruckus]

Circumcision rates have declined significantly over the years. People are starting to see what circumcision really is; a silly old barbaric practice that has no medical purpose. Really, there's enough evidence to suggest it does more harm than anything remotely beneficial, but that completely goes without saying if you've ever seen a real circumcision being practiced. You destroy thousands of ultra sensitive nerves, permanently scar the organ, dry the glans (killing sensitivity), potentially develop a number of sexual deficiencies and even a botched circumcision!

This is just defense for the defenseless. The whole topic of circumcision is very debatable now, there's a lot we're still trying to find out about the foreskin. We shouldn't allow children to be subject to something like this when there's so much uncertainty now. No, they're not taking away your decision to be circumcised, they're defending people to allow them to be able to make the decision to manipulate their bodies permanently on their own.

Look back at the history of why circumcisions blew up in America. We're no longer that closed minded irrational country, we have no reason to make decisions for other people on matters like this. It's just cruel now with all we know anyways. People need to speak up on these matters a bit more because they're pointlessly taboo, it doesn't get enough attention. The day will still come when circumcision of male children will be outlaw just as female circumcision was. The practice will need to lose grounds though, but that's exactly what's happening now if you look at statistics.

Care to share some of that evidence?

 

[Sinoox]

I'm sorry, for some reason it posted my message twice.

 

[Sinoox]

Care to share some of that evidence?

I'd be more than happy to do so.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

This talks about far more than I could ever on the devastation of circumcision.

 

[jaxword]

We're not the ones with ugly dicks...

It seriously is so ugly uncut

Come on, dude, this has been gone over--why would you care about what another man's penis looks like? There's no logical reason to care about it except as a confirmation bias towards yourself.

 

[Jackson]

I'd be more than happy to do so.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

This talks about far more than I could ever on the devastation of circumcision.

Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development.

But the Nazi's were uncircumcised!

 

[kehs]

We're not the ones with ugly dicks...

It seriously is so ugly uncut

Amputated stumps are so good looking.

 

[Magni]

This is what I'm fucking talk about. IT's not mutilation. Stop this bullshit. Female circumcision is. Male isn't.

Why? Seriously, I'm not joking, why isn't cutting off a bit of your body, against your free will, and for no medical reasons, not mutilation?

As for the "land of the free" comment, I know it's already been replied to but it needs to be stated again, so much for the kids' freedom of having a full penis.

Whoever mentionned a ban on uncircumsised penises, are you kidding me? This is not about banning circumcision, this is about banning parents from doing it to their kids before they're 18. Lets ban people from not having tattoos while we're at it.

The most defensive people in these threads are always cut guys ("DICK CHEESE!" wut?), seems they don't get we have nothing against them (as you never had any choice in the matter), we just want to avoid having future generations going through that.

To the cut guys here, would you circumsize your sons at birth, and if yes, why? Tradition/Religion is never a one-word answer, you have to actually think things through.

 

[Billen]

Cut the labia off and leave the clit. Otherwise the female gets dirty.

 

[HallucinatingElvis]

The most defensive people in these threads are always cut guys ("DICK CHEESE!" wut?),

cept that's not actually true.

 

[Magni]

cept that's not actually true.

Elaborate please?