|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:14 am
No matter how you put it, it's genital mutilation. And that's wrong, and should be illegal. If female genital mutilation is so taboo and frowned upon, why the hell is it OK to chop of parts of penises??
I know, offtopic - but the whole hygiene argument is utter bullshit. I'm not circumcised and I NEVER had ANY hygiene problems, cause my parents were smart and adult enough to tell me how to wash my d**k - it's not rocket science. But I guess some parents are too ashamed of explaining such things, so they rather chop that thing off.
Sorry, but this really pisses me off.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:46 pm
Artto No matter how you put it, it's genital mutilation. And that's wrong, and should be illegal. If female genital mutilation is so taboo and frowned upon, why the hell is it OK to chop of parts of penises?? Female circumcision is frowned upon because when a female is circumcised, she basically loses her ability to enjoy sex. It can make it very painful for her actually. It's usually done between the ages of four and six, meaning the girl remembers how painful it is. It can lead to complications with birth. And basically they got further because a p***s is much bigger then a clitoris-they have to cut off more, so the girl is in more pain. Even if we did do it when the girl was a baby and in a hospital (and it's not done this way), the girl it was done to still would lose more enjoyment of sex then her male counterpart, and that's with the least severe of the four ways it can be done. Besides that, there is no religious reason to put a girl through that. You can hardly compare the two. http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_circ.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:46 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Artto No matter how you put it, it's genital mutilation. And that's wrong, and should be illegal. If female genital mutilation is so taboo and frowned upon, why the hell is it OK to chop of parts of penises?? Female circumcision is frowned upon because when a female is circumcised, she basically loses her ability to enjoy sex. It can make it very painful for her actually. It's usually done between the ages of four and six, meaning the girl remembers how painful it is. It can lead to complications with birth. And basically they got further because a p***s is much bigger then a clitoris-they have to cut off more, so the girl is in more pain. Even if we did do it when the girl was a baby and in a hospital (and it's not done this way), the girl it was done to still would lose more enjoyment of sex then her male counterpart, and that's with the least severe of the four ways it can be done. Besides that, there is no religious reason to put a girl through that. You can hardly compare the two. http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_circ.htm It cannot be argued that female is worse then male. Female is much worse, that is true. But what you have to see from our point of view is that it is a violation, not as drastic on a male, but a violation none the less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:05 pm
Eirikir xxEternallyBluexx Artto No matter how you put it, it's genital mutilation. And that's wrong, and should be illegal. If female genital mutilation is so taboo and frowned upon, why the hell is it OK to chop of parts of penises?? Female circumcision is frowned upon because when a female is circumcised, she basically loses her ability to enjoy sex. It can make it very painful for her actually. It's usually done between the ages of four and six, meaning the girl remembers how painful it is. It can lead to complications with birth. And basically they got further because a p***s is much bigger then a clitoris-they have to cut off more, so the girl is in more pain. Even if we did do it when the girl was a baby and in a hospital (and it's not done this way), the girl it was done to still would lose more enjoyment of sex then her male counterpart, and that's with the least severe of the four ways it can be done. Besides that, there is no religious reason to put a girl through that. You can hardly compare the two. http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_circ.htm It cannot be argued that female is worse then male. Female is much worse, that is true. But what you have to see from our point of view is that it is a violation, not as drastic on a male, but a violation none the less. You just confirmed it is worse, so yes it can be argued. With the females we're talking about a surgery that affects them negatively for the rest of their life, if they survive it. Have you ever heard of a guy dying from having his foreskin removed? I haven't. Actually a better comparison would probably be comparing female circumcision to having your p***s and testes cut off. That, I'd agree, would be something that should be outlawed even if a religion said it should be done. Male circumcision is a walk in the park compared to those two. I really can't see what the big deal is, especially since it doesn't really affect the guy, and if he's a Christian or Jew it means he doesn't have to have it done later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:10 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Eirikir xxEternallyBluexx Artto No matter how you put it, it's genital mutilation. And that's wrong, and should be illegal. If female genital mutilation is so taboo and frowned upon, why the hell is it OK to chop of parts of penises?? Female circumcision is frowned upon because when a female is circumcised, she basically loses her ability to enjoy sex. It can make it very painful for her actually. It's usually done between the ages of four and six, meaning the girl remembers how painful it is. It can lead to complications with birth. And basically they got further because a p***s is much bigger then a clitoris-they have to cut off more, so the girl is in more pain. Even if we did do it when the girl was a baby and in a hospital (and it's not done this way), the girl it was done to still would lose more enjoyment of sex then her male counterpart, and that's with the least severe of the four ways it can be done. Besides that, there is no religious reason to put a girl through that. You can hardly compare the two. http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_circ.htm It cannot be argued that female is worse then male. Female is much worse, that is true. But what you have to see from our point of view is that it is a violation, not as drastic on a male, but a violation none the less. You just confirmed it is worse, so yes it can be argued. With the females we're talking about a surgery that affects them negatively for the rest of their life, if they survive it. Have you ever heard of a guy dying from having his foreskin removed? I haven't. Actually a better comparison would probably be comparing female circumcision to having your p***s and testes cut off. That, I'd agree, would be something that should be outlawed even if a religion said it should be done. Male circumcision is a walk in the park compared to those two. I really can't see what the big deal is, especially since it doesn't really affect the guy, and if he's a Christian or Jew it means he doesn't have to have it done later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 7:32 pm
I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:32 pm
Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:23 pm
divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:22 am
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration.
Point is, there is no REASON to chop off the foreskin of a p***s. It doesn't help in anyway what-so-ever so I don't see why it needs to be done.
Let's not forget that some people here, like me, WERE infants and had their foreskin cut off. I feel bad because I never had a say in it nor was it needed.
( Plus the skin could have been helpful but I wont explain...cough cough... )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:30 am
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration.
Point is, there is no REASON to chop off the foreskin of a p***s. It doesn't help in anyway what-so-ever so I don't see why it needs to be done.
Let's not forget that some people here, like me, WERE infants and had their foreskin cut off. I feel bad because I never had a say in it nor was it needed.
( Plus the skin could have been helpful but I wont explain...cough cough... )No reason? How about: It's G'd's first Commandmet to the Jewish People! You can be upset that you had no say in yours being taken away, but that has nothing to do with Jewish Religious circumcision. I am not mutilated, I am chosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:22 am
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration. Foreskin won't grow back. It is a permanent wound. It is not the loss of a limb, no, but it is forever. But again- My God says that earlobes are an abomination and demands that we rid ourselves of these useless, disease carrying, wax-collecting appendages. My children will not have earlobes. They will have holes in the sides of their heads, as that is what our God commanded for them. amirite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:24 am
Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration.
Point is, there is no REASON to chop off the foreskin of a p***s. It doesn't help in anyway what-so-ever so I don't see why it needs to be done.
Let's not forget that some people here, like me, WERE infants and had their foreskin cut off. I feel bad because I never had a say in it nor was it needed.
( Plus the skin could have been helpful but I wont explain...cough cough... )No reason? How about: It's G'd's first Commandmet to the Jewish People! You can be upset that you had no say in yours being taken away, but that has nothing to do with Jewish Religious circumcision. I am not mutilated, I am chosen. Let them decide, then. You have no right to force your beliefs on your children, particularly when that belief involves removing parts of their bodies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 11:02 am
Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration.
Point is, there is no REASON to chop off the foreskin of a p***s. It doesn't help in anyway what-so-ever so I don't see why it needs to be done.
Let's not forget that some people here, like me, WERE infants and had their foreskin cut off. I feel bad because I never had a say in it nor was it needed.
( Plus the skin could have been helpful but I wont explain...cough cough... )No reason? How about: It's G'd's first Commandmet to the Jewish People! You can be upset that you had no say in yours being taken away, but that has nothing to do with Jewish Religious circumcision. I am not mutilated, I am chosen.
( The idea got him killed but you know what I am saying... )
Point is, if a god makes you the way you are there shouldn't be a reason to chop the foreskin off for any reason what-so-ever.
However, I'm not Jewish so I wont touch this in a manner as such...
Instead, I will touch it in a DIFFERENT manner.
The reason I'm not cool with this whole circumcision process is because:
1.) It's pretty much letting the parents decide what the baby's religion will be and strike as a permanent reminder of such.
2.) It leaves a permanent mark onto the person forever. That skin will never grow back. No one should have ANY rule of changing the way how YOUR p***s looks without your decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:02 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration. Losing your foreskin makes sex somewhat less pleasurable (and makes controlling your orgasm harder), since it's a very sensitive part. So it's not like there are no consequences. And on FGM, there are less extreme examples, like removing the clitoral hood (somewhat akin to foreskin). Is that acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:40 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Aakosir I do not see a problem with circumcising males. I believe it has been proved to help with disease risks or something along those lines. It's been a while since I've taken any medical classes so pardon the rough knowledge. But I definitly do not agree with circumcising females. It is a totally different process and serves no use, then to make the female miserable. So there's my two cents. It has been proven that circumcision does not lower the risk of disease. By the logic that removing it makes the p***s easier to clean, then by all means- Cut off our toes so they're harder to stub, cut off our earlobes so there's nothing to wash behind, cut our noses back to the cavity so no mucous can accumulate to be blown out. It's a terrible, stupid reason to permanently mutilate another human being who can not consent to it. You call it mutilation. This is what mutilation means: Definitions of mutilation on the Web: * an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation * The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutilation * mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" * mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Cutting off the p***s is mutilation. Cutting off the foreskin of an infant who won't remember it, and who probably will never care, who won't have any negative results except that they (*OMG*) have lost their foreskin, is not mutilation, except as an very extreme exaggeration. Foreskin won't grow back. It is a permanent wound. It is not the loss of a limb, no, but it is forever. But again- My God says that earlobes are an abomination and demands that we rid ourselves of these useless, disease carrying, wax-collecting appendages. My children will not have earlobes. They will have holes in the sides of their heads, as that is what our God commanded for them. amirite? I still think it's not like earlobes either-I mean, everyone can see if those get cut off. It's God's covenant. It's a holy, sacred promise to God, and I think He's more important then the loss of a piece of skin. Even if you think He doesn't exist, (and this argument can pretty much be applied to anything) then it's not wrong because we have nothing to base right and wrong off of except ourselves and the culture. Basically, one way it's right because God says so, and the other way it's not really wrong because who's allowed to define wrong if He doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
