|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:44 pm
Artto 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? That's pretty minor. And nope. They do FGM out of hospitals to girls who are old enough to remember it being done, and because it's so much smaller then it's male counterpart, you have to remove more. There is also no religious reason to have it done, except some Muslim folk take modesty a little too far. Most of the reasons why male circumcision is okay/good, just plain don't apply to females.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:50 pm
Captain_Shinzo 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. When you tell me it is a Jewish ideal, I always think of what Jimi Hendrix thought. Jimi had the idea that you were born BY god, and that god made every inch of you perfectly for your life. Because of this, you had to follow and continue that life with your body. ( 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.1) Just because you're circumcised doesn't mean you have to be a Jew or Christian. There's an African tribe who does it when a boy becomes a man. 2) There's a lot of things a person doesn't get to decide; they don't get to decide their gender or race. Their parents and society decide the vast majority of what will influence them as they grow up. They can't pick their family, or where they live growing up. There's a lot factors a person can't control, especially in their early life, so why is this one such a big deal?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:33 am
Something I personally would not do to my future son, if I have one.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:52 am
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. When you tell me it is a Jewish ideal, I always think of what Jimi Hendrix thought. Jimi had the idea that you were born BY god, and that god made every inch of you perfectly for your life. Because of this, you had to follow and continue that life with your body. ( 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.1) Just because you're circumcised doesn't mean you have to be a Jew or Christian. There's an African tribe who does it when a boy becomes a man. 2) There's a lot of things a person doesn't get to decide; they don't get to decide their gender or race. Their parents and society decide the vast majority of what will influence them as they grow up. They can't pick their family, or where they live growing up. There's a lot factors a person can't control, especially in their early life, so why is this one such a big deal? Being born male or female is inherent to birth. Being born black or white is inherent to birth. Having part of your p***s removed is not. Having part of your ears removed is not. Having a tattoo is not. It's not that the child can't choose, it's that the child can't choose something that someone else DOES CHOOSE, actively, for that child.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:57 am
xxEternallyBluexx 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? I am not doubting God. I am doubting this commandment. Again, ears. Ears, ears, ears. My God commands me to cut off my child's ears, like the great Van Gogh before us. It's more clean, after all. So let's make it standard medical practice. There is objective right and wrong. And it is objectively wrong to harm another, or physically alter another person's body, even if that person can not consent to or deny it. If YOU want to prove your faith in God and your acceptance of commandments, by all means. Get the procedure FOR YOURSELF. But do NOT force it on a child.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:03 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. When you tell me it is a Jewish ideal, I always think of what Jimi Hendrix thought. Jimi had the idea that you were born BY god, and that god made every inch of you perfectly for your life. Because of this, you had to follow and continue that life with your body. ( 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.1) Just because you're circumcised doesn't mean you have to be a Jew or Christian. There's an African tribe who does it when a boy becomes a man. 2) There's a lot of things a person doesn't get to decide; they don't get to decide their gender or race. Their parents and society decide the vast majority of what will influence them as they grow up. They can't pick their family, or where they live growing up. There's a lot factors a person can't control, especially in their early life, so why is this one such a big deal? 1.) This thread is on religious circumcision. If the reason for altering another person's p***s is NOT religion, that makes it even worse if not as worse. 2.) People are born with many traits. A circumcised p***s is NOT a trait. No one NEEDS to alter someone's p***s for any reason because they aren't born with it nor is circumcision useful. As for religious reasons, I have not been given a decent reason for doing such a thing.
My point is, don't do anything to a baby just because it's YOUR belief. Keyword: YOUR Not the babies.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 6:06 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Artto 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? That's pretty minor. It is still a back-fire. If leaving the skin on is better than taking it off, than what is the problem? It's like the religious fanatics who believe you have to wear special underwear when having sex.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:36 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx 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? I am not doubting God. I am doubting this commandment. Again, ears. Ears, ears, ears. My God commands me to cut off my child's ears, like the great Van Gogh before us. It's more clean, after all. So let's make it standard medical practice. There is objective right and wrong. And it is objectively wrong to harm another, or physically alter another person's body, even if that person can not consent to or deny it. If YOU want to prove your faith in God and your acceptance of commandments, by all means. Get the procedure FOR YOURSELF. But do NOT force it on a child. Okay. I still don't think it's the same... There's special cases where it's okay, like if a kid needs their tonsils out. That surgery can be more traumatic, but we allow it for good reason. Circumcision for males isn't as traumatic, and I'd argue if the commandment is from God (and I don't know how to prove it is, so don't ask me to. I realize it's a hole, but it's not one I can fix at the moment) then that's a valid reason to do that to the child. We force all sorts of things on children in the name of good health (braces, for one thing). I think religion is more important, and that even though this might encourage someone to follow God, ultimately it won't take the decision out of their hands.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:43 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. When you tell me it is a Jewish ideal, I always think of what Jimi Hendrix thought. Jimi had the idea that you were born BY god, and that god made every inch of you perfectly for your life. Because of this, you had to follow and continue that life with your body. ( 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.1) Just because you're circumcised doesn't mean you have to be a Jew or Christian. There's an African tribe who does it when a boy becomes a man. 2) There's a lot of things a person doesn't get to decide; they don't get to decide their gender or race. Their parents and society decide the vast majority of what will influence them as they grow up. They can't pick their family, or where they live growing up. There's a lot factors a person can't control, especially in their early life, so why is this one such a big deal? 1.) This thread is on religious circumcision. If the reason for altering another person's p***s is NOT religion, that makes it even worse if not as worse. 2.) People are born with many traits. A circumcised p***s is NOT a trait. No one NEEDS to alter someone's p***s for any reason because they aren't born with it nor is circumcision useful. As for religious reasons, I have not been given a decent reason for doing such a thing.
My point is, don't do anything to a baby just because it's YOUR belief. Keyword: YOUR Not the babies.1) My point is this isn't going to force a boy to follow a certain religion. His parents are more likely to guide him in that direction with his circumcision having little to do with it. 2) God said to do it. It doesn't appear to have an negative impact on males. Therefore we do it. What argument exactly are you looking for religiously? I could get you the OT verses where God says to do it, but that's pretty much the argument. The kid is probably going to become a Christian/Jew anyways. Even if he doesn't, he probably won't care. I don't think it's that big of a deal. In fact, I think it's be tougher for a male who is a Jew/Christian who hasn't had it done, because it's extremely painful. Either they'll be forced to disobey God, or they'll have to do something they wished they wouldn't have to remember, and that they feel should've been done on a certain day. (I think it commands on the eighth day) Would that man have your sympathy?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:49 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Artto 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? That's pretty minor. It is still a back-fire. If leaving the skin on is better than taking it off, than what is the problem? It's like the religious fanatics who believe you have to wear special underwear when having sex.I think I already put down my 'problem', but in a nutshell: God doesn't command it. It's far more traumatic for girls, and it's unnecessary pain. And following God's commands doesn't mean we have to over exaggerate them to obey them.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:48 am
*facepalm* I love how my one statement makes a whole huge arguement... That's what I was told is all. And like I said, it's been atleast three years since I have taken a health class.
And I just found this so I would like to share. It has religious and medical reasons.Quote: For a woman looking for a sensitive man, an uncircumcised partner has one advantage: his p***s will probably be more responsive because of the foreskin that covers its tip. Called a prepuce, the foreskin is removed in some males during circumcision. Over time, however, the circumcised p***s loses some sensitivity as it rubs unprotected against a man's underwear all day. Does that bode badly for the love lives of men who were stripped of their foreskin? Not so fast ... The question of whether circumcision is beneficial or bad news for a man's sex life — and his health — is still fodder for debate. Circumcision — A Question of Culture The Bible says "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you" (Genesis 17:11). In the Jewish culture, as well as the Muslim one, boy babies are circumcised as a religious rite. Today, however, some 85 percent of males — regardless of religious orientation — are circumcised in the United States, according to a new edition of Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask, by David Reuben, M.D. (New York: HarperCollins, c1999). In Europe, by contrast, only about 10 percent of male babies have their foreskin removed. The five- to 10-minute surgery is usually performed within the first weeks after birth. It's common to have several days of discomfort after circumcision. But complications, such as bleeding and infection, are rare, with the risk increasing after the age of two months and remaining higher in older boys and men, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Possible origins of the practice, according to sociologists and anthropologists, include hygiene, ethnic belonging, attractiveness to the opposite sex and/or increase in sexual pleasure. Some of these reasons are still cited today — 3,000 years after this most widely practiced of surgeries was first described in the Bible. Circumcision — Good News and Bad While the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't consider circumcision to be medically necessary, there are some medical reasons for performing one. Those include preventing recurring infections of the head of the p***s, avoiding obstruction of urine flow that can result when the prepuce's opening narrows, and preventing a tight prepuce from retracting over the glans. Also, circumcision may reduce the incidence of penile cancer (a very rare condition). Even barring these considerations, infections, including urinary tract infections in infants, are less common in a circumcised p***s. That's because a circumcised p***s is easier to keep clean. (By pulling back the uncircumcised foreskin and cleaning carefully, a man can reduce the formation of smegma, a cottage cheese-like substance that can lead to a foul odor and infection). I do find circumcised penises more attractive. I am very picky about my down stairs. I cringe at Prince Albert and Jacob Latter piercings.Quote: Circumcision or Not? Benefits and After Affects Finally, circumcision might have a small protective effect against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "some research suggests that circumcised men may be at a reduced risk for developing syphilis and HIV infections." Some scientists blame any increased risk in uncircumcised penises on increased mucosal cells that can allow infection to enter more easily. What's more, microorganisms can flourish in a warm, moist area under the foreskin. Circumcision aside, the AAP policy states that behavioral factors continue to be far more important in determining a person's risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases that circumcision status. The bottom line: A man should continue to wear a condom and practice monogamy to keep STDs at bay. Don't Look Back There's no quickie answer to whether reduced sensitivity meaningfully affects a circumcised man's sex life. "Whether there's a significant difference is somewhat in the eye of the beholder," says sex researcher and educator Herb Samuels, Ph.D., who doesn't believe that diminished pleasure should be a determining factor in the circumcision decision. To circumcised men who are concerned they're missing out, Ruth Westheimer, Ph.D., popularly known as "Dr. Ruth," says, "I tell them that, as long as they are having orgasms, this is not something that they should be worrying about." With the pros and cons of making the cut still under debate, religion, culture and personal preferences might reign as the biggest considerations in whether to part with the p***s's foreskin. If his parents picked circumcision and a man wants his foreskin back, forget about it, though plastic surgery can construct something similar. Before going under the knife, however, a man should know this: American women's preference, according to surveys described in Reuben's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, is a circumcised p***s, which the women say is cleaner, sexier and nicer to handle. Female Circumcision When a woman's clitoris, hood and labia are removed, the operation is called female circumcision. But the practice is better known as " female genital mutilation," because it eliminates a woman's ability to enjoy sexual sensations. There are no health reasons for the surgery, most commonly performed in some African, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries, and in fact it is often performed in unsanitary conditions, which can increase the chance of serious health problems. I also wanted to include the "female genital mutilation" because they remove everything on the outside! It can absolutely in no way compare to a male circumcision.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:57 am
divineseraph 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. Circumcision used to be done a barmitsfa's. {Please don't kill me if I spelled that wrong} The boy used to be sixteen, or around there. It was more like an anitiation in to man-hood then. So if you were sixteen you would have had a choice {not really in some families} but you would have been old enough to understand why it was being done. I'm not sure if I think the boys should be older and understand or be an infant and be taught. I personally would not want to be a sixteen year old by who had just had that opperation, I would have prefered it at birth when I was not sexually active.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:52 am
` Aakosir divineseraph Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. Circumcision used to be done a barmitsfa's. {Please don't kill me if I spelled that wrong} The boy used to be sixteen, or around there. It was more like an anitiation in to man-hood then. So if you were sixteen you would have had a choice {not really in some families} but you would have been old enough to understand why it was being done. I'm not sure if I think the boys should be older and understand or be an infant and be taught. I personally would not want to be a sixteen year old by who had just had that opperation, I would have prefered it at birth when I was not sexually active.That is incorrect. In Judaism circumcision has ALWAYS been at 8 days old. Other cultures have done it around what to Jews is the Bar- mitzvah time(which, by the way, is age 13, not 16), but Judaism has always said 'Do it when they're a baby and they won't have any concious memory of the pain and it will be LONG healed before manhood.' The only times any Jews have ever been circumcised after 8 days old are if they are converting at an older age or if some health reason prevented the baby from being circumcised at 8 days old. You are correct, though, in that infant circumcision is far preferable. I mean no offense to other cultures that do it around puberty, but in my personal opinion it is INFINITELY better to have it already have been done and not even remembered when you enter manhood, rather than a fully self-aware and cognicent 13-year-old getting it done and having to not only deal with the pain for weeks after but certainly remember the pain forever. Aslo, 13-year-old minds still have about a decade until they are fully developed. Between that and hormones and well-knonw teenaged impulsiveness, an adult parent making the decision is far wiser.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:14 am
Lumanny the Space Jew ` Aakosir divineseraph Lumanny the Space Jew Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx 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. You googled mutilation. Good for you. 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. Circumcision used to be done a barmitsfa's. {Please don't kill me if I spelled that wrong} The boy used to be sixteen, or around there. It was more like an anitiation in to man-hood then. So if you were sixteen you would have had a choice {not really in some families} but you would have been old enough to understand why it was being done. I'm not sure if I think the boys should be older and understand or be an infant and be taught. I personally would not want to be a sixteen year old by who had just had that opperation, I would have prefered it at birth when I was not sexually active.That is incorrect. In Judaism circumcision has ALWAYS been at 8 days old. Other cultures have done it around what to Jews is the Bar- mitzvah time(which, by the way, is age 13, not 16), but Judaism has always said 'Do it when they're a baby and they won't have any concious memory of the pain and it will be LONG healed before manhood.' The only times any Jews have ever been circumcised after 8 days old are if they are converting at an older age or if some health reason prevented the baby from being circumcised at 8 days old. You are correct, though, in that infant circumcision is far preferable. I mean no offense to other cultures that do it around puberty, but in my personal opinion it is INFINITELY better to have it already have been done and not even remembered when you enter manhood, rather than a fully self-aware and cognicent 13-year-old getting it done and having to not only deal with the pain for weeks after but certainly remember the pain forever. Aslo, 13-year-old minds still have about a decade until they are fully developed. Between that and hormones and well-knonw teenaged impulsiveness, an adult parent making the decision is far wiser. Okay. I did not know that it was not Jewish tradition to do that. I thought it was a long time ago and it had changed to be more "modern".
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:14 am
Aakosir Quote: Circumcision or Not? Benefits and After Affects Finally, circumcision might have a small protective effect against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "some research suggests that circumcised men may be at a reduced risk for developing syphilis and HIV infections." Some scientists blame any increased risk in uncircumcised penises on increased mucosal cells that can allow infection to enter more easily. What's more, microorganisms can flourish in a warm, moist area under the foreskin. Circumcision aside, the AAP policy states that behavioral factors continue to be far more important in determining a person's risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases that circumcision status. The bottom line: A man should continue to wear a condom and practice monogamy to keep STDs at bay. Don't Look Back There's no quickie answer to whether reduced sensitivity meaningfully affects a circumcised man's sex life. "Whether there's a significant difference is somewhat in the eye of the beholder," says sex researcher and educator Herb Samuels, Ph.D., who doesn't believe that diminished pleasure should be a determining factor in the circumcision decision. To circumcised men who are concerned they're missing out, Ruth Westheimer, Ph.D., popularly known as "Dr. Ruth," says, "I tell them that, as long as they are having orgasms, this is not something that they should be worrying about." With the pros and cons of making the cut still under debate, religion, culture and personal preferences might reign as the biggest considerations in whether to part with the p***s's foreskin. If his parents picked circumcision and a man wants his foreskin back, forget about it, though plastic surgery can construct something similar. Before going under the knife, however, a man should know this: American women's preference, according to surveys described in Reuben's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, is a circumcised p***s, which the women say is cleaner, sexier and nicer to handle. Female Circumcision When a woman's clitoris, hood and labia are removed, the operation is called female circumcision. But the practice is better known as " female genital mutilation," because it eliminates a woman's ability to enjoy sexual sensations. There are no health reasons for the surgery, most commonly performed in some African, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries, and in fact it is often performed in unsanitary conditions, which can increase the chance of serious health problems. I also wanted to include the "female genital mutilation" because they remove everything on the outside! It can absolutely in no way compare to a male circumcision.Mle and female cricumcison are the same... as long as the male circumciser goes crazy and cuts way too much off while simultaneously the female circumciser is lazy and barely starts the process before stopping.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|