You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

reply to post by ofhumandescent

God, how horribly primitive.

This comment in its self is the reason why this thread is pathetic , I reckon you have all been fooled for a star and flag thread, She clearly hasn't go a clue and clearly hasn't investigated culture that reaches back thousands of years, and I don't mean religion

Please spare us with the primitive talk, its very insulting especially coming from a women who clearly hasnt a clue about this issue

Wal

reply to post by Gorman91

Love, to put it simply, died post-introduction. It was given by my parents at times, other times not. I simply never took it, as I did not understand the point to it.

What you are describing here, & in the rest of that post, is classic 'counter-dependent' psychology. Google it. Then go talk to a professional.
You, & thus yours, will definitely benefit from your better understanding of your personality.

reply to post by XtrozeroOops, forgot this 1 as well:

But then I want to be the first to say I wish I kept my tonsils and I feel it is a form of mutilation.

Well, it is a form of mutilation, but its done when a child is suffering from a severe throat infection (not on the off chance that they may do at some point). However, the tonsils are merely the outer part of lymph nodes in the throat & grow back after the excision of the badly infected portion. It would take a great deal more complex surgery than wrapping a loop of fine wire around the swollen bit & pulling it tight (which is how tonsilectomy is performed) to remove the entire structure. Furthermore, even if you did have a comprehensive tonsilectomy, it would not affect your sense of taste...
Still, you weren't being serious anyway, were you? You were just being flippant, which is exactly why I pulled you on it, because it seems that many people are just as flippant about the foreskin.
It really does matter.

reply to post by SLaPPiE


Sorry but being circumcised does NOT “add to sexual pleasure by increasing sensitivity”. I can simulate not having a foreskin by simply pulling it back. How would you simulate having one?

“Easy to clean = Less disease spreading” I respectfully disagree. I’ve never had an issue. Soap and water ring a bell?

“I don't know one cut man that wants his skin back”. How the @#$% would they know whether they wanted it back or not, never having had one.

Lets just say they cut off your entire penis at birth. How would you know what sensations you were unable to experience???

I know I personally wouldn’t part with mine! I like it, I like it a lot!!

Thanks Mom….

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

That would be assuming all people count sex as important.

I do not. I'm probably one broken protein sequence away from asexual. This crazed sexual behavior of mankind makes no sense to me.

edit on 22-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Well, as I've already said, I believe you have psychological issues that need addressing, but, obviously, I could be wrong.
Whatever. To me "crazed" is what happens to people who do not get enough sex or are not satisfied by what they do get. Er... do we see a pattern emerging here, my friends?

reply to post by Pimpish

By the way, there is less risk of cancer. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics

Btw, according to the Southern Kthuk!ludi Academy Of Gorilla Boning, not only does having regular sex with female gorillas prevent human females from putting a spell on males, but it also helps in maintaining an erection during battle, which is important because, without it, a man could not rape the losers before they are ritually sacrificed.
Oh dear, have I finally gone over the top? Let's hope not... It is, after all, an analogy.

reply to post by Death_Kron

Okay, just done some research and it's not rare at all.

Different people have different lengths of foreskin, men with shorter foreskin may find that it retracts automatically when they have an erect, men with longer foreskin can still have the head of the penis covered when they achieve an erection.

As you went on to say, this is a difficult topic to discuss without becoming impolite. I suspect that, wherever you pulled that research from, they were also being less graphic than might have told the full story.
Amongst hundreds, I can only remember 1 man who is endowed with what you describe. Funnily enough, considering whats been posted here before, his nickname is "the dog", although that relates to something other than his member. That said, his member is, whilst not freakishly huge, considerably larger than most & its skin is also pretty loose. It makes him remarkable!
There are plenty of uncut men whose foreskins dont quite retract off the ridge of the glans, but, even without manual assistance, they usually drop down during use, if that makes sense?

reply to post by General.Lee

We could consider piercing and tattoos as mutilation if we want to stretch it to your standards.

Yes, & since they are both permanent alterations to the body, we would be completely correct to refer to them as mutilation. That is not to say that the degree of mutilation is the same as dipping people in a 55 gallon drum of boiling oil (as the CIA & MI6 reputedly pay Uzbeki state agents to do to the victims of "extraordinary rendition" [ie kidnapping] on their behalf), but 1 thing thats really beautiful about education is that it teaches us the real meaning of words, thus, despite the trends of the day, we can still express ourselves in terms that, should they choose to get a decent education themselves, anyone can properly understand.
Personally, I've got 4 piercings & 8 bits of ink (1 of which is on my penis). Guess what? I chose to be mutilated for myself, for my own reasons &, whilst there is a bit that needs retouching on my inner lip, I'm happy with what I paid to have done to me.
Now, when I had my penis tattooed, I had to stretch it to the tattoo artist's standards & it did hurt. So what? I wanted it to look like it does &, if I thought for a moment that what I wanted it to look like would interfere with any sensation, I wouldn't have had it done (I did want considerably more ink on my inner lip, but it just wouldn't have worked; partly because I would have had nerve damage [what they call "deep skin trauma"] & I couldn't find a decent tattooist who would have a go at it, therefore I got the message - what you want cant be done without f#ing you up...).
Are you getting the picture here? Let me shout it, just incase you're not:
IT WAS ALL MY CHOICE!

Originally posted by General.Lee

Originally posted by Echtelion
One of the most repulsive threads I've ever read on this site...

Flames aside, excision should not be used as a tool to point the finger at Muslim people, since it is a practice used only in a few specific countries, and originates from the specific power structure and codes of these places.

Which is in large part dictated by Islam which is tightly integrated with government and legislation, unlike most other religions. Most Muslim countries ENFORCE religious edicts as law. It is an integral part of Islam.

That is more TOTAL BOLLOCKS.
I'm not a muslim, or a follower of any religion, but, since many people are, I have at least dipped into the texts by which they derive their habitual modus operandi.
If you can find anything in the Qur'an that advocates female genital mutilation, I'd be fascinated to read it, because, as far as I know, FGM is a cultural tradition which was assimilated into the Islamic practice of conquered cultures, just as the celebration of Easter (a pagan festival named for the Goddess Eostre) was assimilated by the Christians.

reply to post by Pimpish

I can still reproduce and I still enjoy the opposite sex immensely.

Yeah, come back in 20yrs & tell us how you feel (or more likely dont feel) then.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
It's hardly mutilation.

Many of the benefits include:

~ Prevents Penile Cancer. Virtually eliminates the risk
~ Helps prevent Urinary tract infections
~ Lowers risk of contracting STDs.
~ More Hygienic

Even though I'm a woman, I've often wondered about some of these "benefits" that so many American doctors claim when it comes to circumcision and many of them have yet to be proven. Removing the foreskin to possibly prevent things like cancer sounds silly to me because if that's the case, everyone should just kill themselves so they don't have to worry about getting any form of cancer whatsoever. I don't like the possibility of ending up with cervical or ovarian cancer so I think I'll get a hysterectomy just in case. I think the main reason American doctors are so quick to try to tell people that there are "benefits" to circumcision is mainly for aesthetic reasons.

I had found this site awhile back and it really started to make me think that circumcision really isn't necessary. If a person wants to get it done when they are older whether it be for aesthetic reasons or whatnot then at least they are at the age where they can make that decision for themselves but just having it removed to prevent things that have yet to really be proven is unnecessary if you ask me. That would be like telling all women who have very prominent labia minora that that extra skin will make them more prone to UTI's so it would be in their best interest to have it removed. It's just ridiculous.

reply to post by Reign02


I like how you spun the discussion so far away from the root issue just to claim you please your significant other. No one cares. I don't even care to belittle you for mentioning it like a child who just discovered the act.

The simple fact of the matter is, you can neither...

1. Claim it's useless as you've never had use of it.
2. Allude that there's no increased physical pleasure. See reasoning in 1.

As an adult you should be capable of forming more precise statements. As in..

"I have no use for the foreskin", not an overzealous generalization that NO ONE has use of it.


It's simple mutilation, even if for religious purposes. It is a blade, taken to the skin, and skin is then removed. Sounds like your usual knife attack to me.

It should be a decision made by one's self, not for one's self.

Arguing further is just a vein attempt to biasedly justify your position.

reply to post by Red_Rose


K, I'll jump back in now and try and keep emotions out of it. Doctors don't force parents to have their baby circumcised, if a doctor is overbearing in pushing the decision, one should seek a new doctor. There are studies showing benefits from the procedure, and studies showing they aren't necessary, it's up to the parents to make the choice. How many of the anti-circumcision people here are against the choice to have an abortion as well? I'm guessing not many. I am not upset with my parent's decision to have me circumcised, I still enjoy sex immensely, and I also like the way my situation looks down there. Circumcised, and neatly manscaped. I have no memory whatsoever of the procedure, and life is peachy for me. I'm sure it's peachy for those who weren't circumcised as well. It's the parent's choice, to have their newborn undergo a simple procedure that may help reduce problems in the future. If somebody's parents made that choice, and they are not happy with it, take it up with them.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


No. Sex is good. I just don't care about it. Why would you associate not caring with not liking. I don't care for waking up for sun rise. it's still incredibly beautiful and moving. My psychology is perfectly normal. I just see a bunch of sex-hungry humans bouncing on the walls because a chunk of flesh has the function of x^2.

But you are filled with fallacies, as you've shown quite well thus far.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I think the people in my life are very trustworthy. Even when they let me down my trust is not destroyed Again, you show logical fallacies. The fact that I don't care if I am loved or not automatically means that I do not trust them and I have a psychological condition. Sorry, no.

But then again, God forbid your logic be wrong. Because it is. I am simply not applicable to your view of the world. You should create a new way to view the world, seeing as your current subjective view is flawed.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Again, no. I do not think that pain changed th psychology of a child 100% of the time. I think that if you touch a button that hurts you ,you'll stop touching it. It's as simple as that. But alas you have to go into an incredibly pile of "Im a scholar of this bla bla bla". Subjective as always.

Contrary to what you believe I can imagine how things feel that I do not have. I do not have breasts, but I can imagine what it is to have them. I do not have wings, but I can imagine what it is like to have them. How can I prove this? I started doing such things when I was young with food. My food was bland, so I generated a "phantom taste" to make it good. When actually having ate something truly masterful in the culinary arts, the feeling of actual taste was quite similar. I've done this to many aspects of my life and can apply it to whatever comes my way. It's simply using calculus in your mind. Taste has a certain curve to it mathematically. Once I have the derivative to something that tastes like sh*t versus something that tastes amazing, I can amplify it to beyond that which I have ever tasted. When I actually taste something better than I ever have had before, It's taste is properly on the curve. It's anticipated taste matches. The phantom taste and real taste are the same curve.

Sex is no different. Organs and pats I don't have are no different. I can imagine having extra fingers, extra arms, etc etc. It gets really fun when you use hearing and other elements to anticipate the location of other things around you. The make believe arm you have can be used to feel something you are not allowed to touch, such as a sculpture. It's not crazy at all, because I know full well this is always fake. It is always virtual. It is not physical. I can tell the difference between the two. Crazy people cannot.

I can do this in many other fields. When writing something I will create a hologram of a room and analyze it for scene construction, etc. I've used it to define pain that I will not ever feel, hopefully. For example:

The pain of a heart that had to pump blood which had no oxygen in it, but couldn't pump due to the large metal spike through it. The pain of a lung that had the burning of being drowned in it, for which the mind was demanding oxygen in its blood from. The pain of organs unable to accomplish their duties. Once the air was out from that loud scream, it could not come back in to scream again because the blade of a propeller blocked its expansion, and the blood of the punctured body was rushing it. All John saw were the eyes and face which could show this. As the body of this women realized it was drowning, and instantly later realized it had already drowned. When life continues to exist in a body which doesn't realize it can't be alive, the true horror of death is shown.

It's simply. You are dependent on the physical. I am not. You chose to apply your subjective views on all. I chose to apply my subjection in my mind alone, and let the views be objective to all. Quite sad, really.

reply to post by Gorman91


I don't understand what the fuss is about. Are you taking the stance that it should not be a choice?

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I doubt I'll have much of a sex drive 20 years from now, I'll be pretty old at that point.

reply to post by mryanbrown

I really don't care to know if the OP is bi-sexual or not. Your sexual life experiences really don't matter, nor are they helping. They are merely derailing the topic.

I dont remember the OP mentioning her sexuality, nor do I recall anybody else revealing that they are bi, so I'm guessing that you have simply made a mistake & that this comment is aimed at me.
Please explain to us what is OT or "derailing", in a thread about whether the foreskin should be left intact or not, about descriptions of the experience of having one? If this were a thread about the relative merits of various carpentry chisels, we would expect to find people discussing their experience of using them, would we not? So whats different?
Oh hang on... this is about sex & we all know thats something that just cant be talked about frankly, now dont we? Well I say it ought to be. If you dont like it, thats what "ignore" is for.
Other than this, I completely agree with what you posted about the topic.

reply to post by 27jd

If somebody's parents made that choice, and they are not happy with it, take it up with them.

Well, I starred the post by Red_Rose to which the above was a portion of the reply, because she makes a lot of sense. I realise what your position on the subject is, but I'm very curious about this quoted statement.
It sounds as if you are asking/telling us to stop discussing this topic with each other. However, again, I could well be wrong. Perhaps you would elaborate?
I could also be right. In which case, it begs the question, "Why?" Why do you keep coming back to argue this subject without ever addressing what has emerged as the central issue, ie Personal Choice, in any other way than to simply dismiss its importance?
I'll tell you right upfront why I'm so passionate about this subject:
As a bi man, I've been on the receiving end of prejudice from the majority of heterosexuals & plenty of homosexuals all my adult life. I am thus acutely aware of how attitudes to any issues related to sex impact on an individual & those around them. Its an extremely rare event when I meet someone whose attitudes are not, in some way, shape, or form, counter-productive (even then, its probably just that I dont know them well enough to understand what is getting messed up). So, I would like people to change... (I'm making an effort to change the things about my personality which I've identified as unhelpful; why shouldn't others? [yeah, I'm not holding my breath!]).
In your own case, could it be that, deep down, there's a niggle of doubt? That you are defending this unaddressed confusion/ambivalence because you feel that uncertainty is weakness? That would be a completely normal behaviour. Unhelpful, but the most prevalent way that people operate.

reply to post by Gorman91Personally, if I was reading my own posts as if they were written by someone else (oh yeah, I have imagination too), I'd think that my obvious facility with the jargon of psychology & ability to translate it into layman's terms (ok, so I just couldn't be bothered sometimes: mea culpa), would be all the evidence I needed to realise that I do indeed know what I'm talking about, ie this is not hastily googled knowledge.
In therapeutic circles, the position you are arguing from is often called "Special & Different"; in more challenging therapy, its called "King Baby". Basically, you are claiming that whatever is true for the bulk of humanity is not true for you.
Logically, your argument is flawless. Practically however, each of us, no matter our sex, race, religion, or culture, have much more in common than the differences that we cling to as our individual identities. Thus anyone that understands such commonalities also knows you, me & everyone else, probably better than we do ourselves (this is why therapists need to be in therapy themselves, because a major part of our psyche is devoted to lying to ourselves in order to defend the ego).
What you need to grasp, in order to move on from your status quo, is that however "special & different" you feel, or want to believe you are, your basic needs, some of which are emotional, are exactly the same as everyone else's &, furthermore, trying to deny this fact & behave as if it were not true makes you far more vulnerable to manipulation than if you just surrendered to & spoke the truth.
This would have cost you @least $100. What a shame, since you got it free, that you're going to throw it away... Pearls before swine: dont like 'em, dont eat 'em, dont talk to 'em... whats the point? I suppose it comes down to hope!

reply to post by auswally
There was an awful lot of instances of the word "clearly" in your latest reply to the OP. Personally, I cant see anything you applied the word to any better than seeing through ditch-water. Perhaps you'd be prepared to make a cogent argument, rather than relying upon trite (& borderline ad hominem) criticism, to express whatever views you hold on the subject in question?