lets talk about child mutilation

All the recent outcry about how demonic abortion is, made me think about other instances where we as adults don't give a flying f*-- about kid's inability to consent to what we do with them.
There is a practice in the western world that is so barbaric weird, and to a considerable degree perverted, without an obvious benefit. Yet it is celebrated and some even practice it as a religious tradition.
It is widely accepted, and most don’t question it. Why is the oh so concerned for the wellbeing of kids community, themselves practicing child mutilation?
It is on par with the clitoris mutilation practiced in some African tribes. I remember, the western females had a huge outcry, just before she brought her baby boy to get mutilated.

Now rejoice because we are God's children and the good guys are allowed to do whatever... why do we socially accept circumcision?

Let's not.

a reply to: CthruU

More than half of newborn babies are circumcised in the USA. You do practice child mutilations. Uncomfortable topic indeed. I get that you of all, don't want to talk about childhood sexual traumas

a reply to: Terpene
Gosh this is a subject I've always thought as barbaric needless mutilation. I have a fully working healthy foreskin, it catches any odd drips before they can even dampen underpants lol, and when my penis is erect you wouldn't even know I had a foreskin.
So yep, absolute agreement about child abuse, my own son, uncircumcised , says he likes his, and is very glad I didn't steal his chance to choose for himself now.

Edit, And before anyone starts on about hygiene, have you ever heard of washing with soap and water (every foldable bit) you know, like every day or two, actually works without needing cutting off to stay clean! 🤣

Those shmucks fetch a pretty penny to be used in wrinkle creams. Oprah rubs baby shmuck cream on her face.

a reply to: angeltone

I just don't get it how any sane parent can consent to such a barbaric practice performed on their children. I was already at the nurses' throat when she took blood from the newborns' talon, and it started crying.

Maybe these people are sick?

a reply to: Terpene
I don't understand any unnecessary medical procedure being carried out on children, I think people are either brainwashed by religion or silly ideas of hygiene, coz we don't have sandy desert tribe dwelling conditions anymore lol.
If there was any measurable clinical improvement in men's health from cutting them all at birth, the UK NHS absolutely would have done it, or certainly recommend it to us subjects lol, if only to save money on the long term effects of majority men having a foreskin.
Men are not routinely cut here though, simply because a working, clean, looked after, foreskin, is a good thing to have, and overwhelmingly does not generally cause the man any problems.
I certainly could not look my own son in the eyes if I'd decided to have him mutilated though, so I'm grateful the UK doesn't do it for the majority of British boys.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: CthruU

I get that you of all, don't want to talk about childhood sexual traumas

No you don't, infact you don't get much at all.

Who's at fault? Those who desire the procedure or those who carry it out?

Unnecessary topic with questionable moral standing at best.

a reply to: CthruU

Ok...

At fault is the legislative that makes child mutilation legal, under the pretext of freedom of religion. The practitioner is paid by the patient, he gets to do what is asked. I wonder how this procedure, doesn't go against the hippocratic oath?

Why do you consider it unnecessary, and what moral standing do you consider questionable?

Who's at fault? Those who desire the procedure or those who carry it out?

Both parties are equally responsible for removal of healthy foreskin from children below the age of consent.

a reply to: Terpene

I can see the point of circumcision back in the day when desert roaming tribes had perhaps limited access to water for bathing or some such. In that circumstance it might have been a health issue. That being said, to continue such a practice in the modern age is barbaric but then again so is the poisoning of children's minds with religious indoctrination.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: CthruU

More than half of newborn babies are circumcised in the USA. You do practice child mutilations. Uncomfortable topic indeed. I get that you of all, don't want to talk about childhood sexual traumas

Uncircumcised males are at risk of serious complications in adulthood, and surgery to correct the problems is carries some very serious risks. In infancy, the risks are minimal, so it's done as a preventive measure.

An adult male family member faced complications directly caused by not having been circumcised, and it's not an experience I would wish on anybody.

Circumcising your newborn is an option; it's not like anybody is being forced to have it done. I would caution everybody to do their research and make an informed decision before classifying it as 'mutilation'.

midicon: Chronic conditions- such as diabetes to name just one- can cause serious, painful issues. Even if it was limited to just lack of cleanliness, that wouldn't bode well for the thousands of homeless men living on the street. There are definitely long-term pros and cons to consider.

a reply to: nugget1

Is it an option for Jewish babies?

a reply to: midicon

I can see the point of circumcision

Honestly, I don't, there is no way this isn't born out of some sick ritualistic tradition. Energetically, it all starts down there. This is so much more than we think. Circumcised men are less sensitive on their penis glans, I think it is a sexual depravity thing

Seriously think what you are proposing. Tribes that had such poor hygiene, they would cut their little ones open, exposing them to all the things they are apparently trying to protect them from? It makes no sense, our body is quite well done and will thrive with very little maintenance. This would be a genetic trait that would soon die out.

a reply to: Terpene

Well I did add the caveat, 'it might have been a health issue', really because it would have been the only acceptable reason for me. I'm not proposing anything, it was a passing thought nothing more.
What you say might be true regards the sexual depravity thing concerning glans and sensitivity, it's not something I have considered as a reason for circumcision. I might look into that although to be honest the subject of genital mutilation isn't exactly something that appeals. I remember watching Christopher Higgins take an eminent rabbi to task over it.

a reply to: nugget1

The few instances that need intervention, dont justify an invasive prophylactic treatment, with a longer list of possible physical complications, and an even longer one considering the mental impact it has. This is cultural, and somehow, someone is trying to rationalize it.

A little research brought me to this article www.medicalnewstoday.com...


Apparently the first circumcision could be dated back 15'000 years.
they assume it was because of sand buildup under the foreskin but they themselves don't sound to sure about that either.

The article even confirms my suspicion

Circumcision became popular in the Western world in the late 19th century, when people began performing the operation in an attempt to prevent masturbation

This is only half the truth, and the issue probably leads very close to one of the cores of the deceptive nature of our reality.

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: Terpene
Uncircumcised males are at risk of serious complications in adulthood,

Care to back that up with any actual evidence?

Unless you can, I believe this is a myth, or at best, an extreme exaggeration of (a) potential problem(s) that can easily be avoided by simply knowing what to watch out for.

a reply to: Terpene

It is on par with the clitoris mutilation practiced in some African tribes.

No it is not. It does not effect us men who were circumcised in the least.

I know several men who were naturally circumcised through accidents, one was kicked by a bull!

Most Drs used to recommend it be done and most parents back then were young and trusteed Drs. Not many had anything to do with religion as biblically speaking circumcision became a spiritual mark not physical after Jesus completed and fulfilled the law.

Colossians 2:11
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,


In my long experience I found this to be true.

Circumcision is the surgical removal of foreskin from a baby's penis. There are several benefits to circumcision, including a lower risk of diseases like urinary tract infections. Older boys and men get circumcised as well. At any age, the circumcised penis usually heals within a week.

With todays diseases and the young men's inattentiveness to cleansing themselves I would think it may be very helpful.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Terpene

I can see the point of circumcision back in the day when desert roaming tribes had perhaps limited access to water for bathing or some such. In that circumstance it might have been a health issue. That being said, to continue such a practice in the modern age is barbaric but then again so is the poisoning of children's minds with religious indoctrination.

I think it is likely more harmful that we treat breastfeeding as a sexual exploit and babies are fed muck from factories.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

No it is not. It does not effect us men who were circumcised in the least.

Medics and psychologist disagree... We all learn to cope with our experiences differently, denial is often the first and only step we dare to take...