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

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
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?

You are wrong. I'm not asking or telling anybody to do anything, I'm just stating my opinion that if somebody is not happy with the choice their parents made for them regarding circumcision, they should confront their parents about it. Perhaps then we as parents could all more clearly see the magnitude of the damage circumcising does to our children, and more parents may be armed with the knowledge they need to fight off the crooked, lying doctors who pretend to have our best interests at heart but only want to cut off our pee-pees and rake in all the cash that brings. And although there have been a few on this thread who claim to regret that they were circumcised, overwhelmingly it seems those who are circumcised are fine with it, and those who aren't are up in arms against it. And although it does seem silly to go back and forth, that is the purpose of this site I guess.

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 believe there are a few choices that can and should be made by parents when it comes to the child they chose to bring into the world. Until a child is 18 years old, here in the U.S. anyway, parents are responsible for decisions regarding their medical care. Circumcision is a procedure that is best performed on an infant, who's nervous system is less developed as far as feelings of pain, and who has absolutely no clue what is going on, which completely does away with anxiety leading up to the procedure. As a father having witnessed birth, I can say being born looks much more painful than any circumcision, but luckily, none of us remember anything about that time. And just as there are a couple people on this thread who regret being circumcised, there are others on this thread who needed to be cut later and regretted that it wasn't done when they couldn't remember it.

I'll tell you right upfront why I'm so passionate about this subject:

Well, I wasn't gonna ask, but you have been the spokesman for penile skin pretty much throughout the thread, lol.

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.

Well, I'm a heterosexual that gives out no prejudice to bisexual, or homosexuals whatsoever. I don't care who you choose to bump uglys with, as long as they are mature and consenting human beings.

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.

Not at all. I can tell you with complete and utter honesty that I don't have any doubt. I believe, personally, that there are health benefits to the procedure. I also admit after reading some of the info presented by those against the procedure, that it is not necessary, and not having it done is not a guarantee that something bad will come. There are pros and cons, and I believe it is up to the parents to decide what is right for the child they created.

Perhaps the reason I feel strongly about this issue, is because the OP is basically saying that those of us who chose to have our sons circumcised to remove a small amount of skin, are somehow equal to those who allow their daughters to be basically castrated so they never feel pleasure from sex, at all. The two are not comparable, and circumcision is not mutilation. It's a minor surgical procedure.

reply to post by Pimpish
Well, I suppose that depends upon your age. How old are you?
I'm 42 &, whilst my libido has (thankfully) calmed down a fair bit in the last 10yrs, I expect that I'll still want to get off a few times a week when I'm 62 (if I live that long).
My current belle is 19yrs younger than me; a pro dancer, studying for her 1st degree & paying for the extras in life by part-time lingerie modeling (quite similar to my ex-wife as it happens - hmmm perhaps I've got a fixation on beautiful intelligent women? . ). My point here is that I'm nothing to look at & my personality isn't easy for others to deal with.
On the plus side, I'm an interesting geezer, b/c I've travelled a lot & lived an unconventional life. I'm quite tall &, despite a bit of 'middle-age spread' fairly skinny, with broad shoulders, so clothes hang well on me (when I can be bothered to dress up). I've still got a full head of thick dark hair.
On the minus side, despite the fact that I have a large vocabulary & a good undertanding of various dialects & patois english, & can get by in several other languages, in person, I find it difficult to communicate with others, unless I'm fully behind my mask of "drunken bum", which precludes the kind of honesty which is the basis of an ongoing good relationship. I've got several scars, some on my face, & my nose, which would always have grown into a bit of a lump, has been broken more times than I can remember. I have worse than stereotypically english bad teeth. I've got deep creases on my forehead & stretch marks around my waist & on my arse. I'm also a habitually scruffy bastard, who, when tings aren't going the way I want, is more foul-mouthed than is generally acceptable.
How is it then that I manage to have sex & long-term relationships with really beautiful, intelligent (&, in some cases, very rich) people?
Could it have anything to do with sex, do you reckon?

reply to post by 27jd

the spokesman for penile skin

I briefly considered adding that to my business card, but the aggravation of explanation would outweigh the humour...
Since I'm in full on psychologist mode, incase you dont already know, let me assure you that a pro therapist would take a sarcastic response to a probing question as an indication of dishonesty about something. Hey ho, on to the rest:
As I said, my wife & I had to make the decision for our kids to have minor surgery on their big toes, because there was a pressing reason to do so. If, however, the toenail was an erogenous zone, we would have gone to any lengths, within our means, to ameliorate the problem before allowing it to be cut away. Also, about age 13, my daughter wanted some ink. My wife was in 2 minds about it (&, I suspect, not wanting to be the 1 to put their foot down). I said "No. Because a) what you want will look crap if it gets stretched as you grow & b) you have no idea how much just having the lines done will hurt & then you'll have to go back several times to get the colours. If you chicken out, it'll look a right mess." Now she's 21, has a couple of small tats, but so far has not gone for the massive design she originally wanted. I feel vindicated.
Lets get this straight tho, you are saying that, despite the fact that there is an ongoing controversy amongst doctors about whether there are any benefits to male circumcision &, even if there are, whether they outweigh the proven fact (by anatomical examination & testing living subjects) that the foreskin is an erogenous zone, & despite what you have read from those of us who are intact, you nonetheless believe that parents have the right to have their sons mutilated?
I'm not claiming that the severity of mutilation is the same, or even comparable, to FGM, but, as I believe was the OPs point, ethically, damaging our kids at all is wrong.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


You continue to use the term mutilation, IMO, that's like throwing around Hitler comparisons anytime somebody does something you don't agree with. It's a simple procedure, it's not mutilation. And why you completely discount the many studies that do show benefit from the procedure and the doctors that do believe it is beneficial, but put 100% faith in those who are against it, is beyond me. As I said, it's the choice of the parents, and it's common here in the U.S. That seems to not be the case in the U.K. which is fine, I for one am not trying to push it on your country. Please refrain from trying to push your opinions on ours, when we want british nannies, we'll hire them. We got out from under the crown long ago.

reply to post by 27jd


Mutilation is the ACCURATE term.

Definition of mutilation:
"Disfigurement; a major reduction or alteration of a limb or tissue, which may be intentional or accidental"

Whatever conotations you decide to put onto the word "mutliation" is up to you, but by actual definition circumcision is "mutilation, as is tattoos, certain piercings (I believe the punch type).

Basically anything that we do to our bodies that is permanent and not designed naturally is techniquely mutilation.

reply to post by 27jdI think it was Binder that gave us a dictionary definition of the word "mutilate" & showed that it is correct english for a removal of part of the body. That you evidently dont like the word doesn't alter its meaning or make it overblown hyperbole, as you suggest. If I say 8-5=3 & 13-12=1, then the fact that the latter leaves less than the former doesn't alter the fact that both operations are subtraction, does it?
I would be interested to see any quotes from me where I've "completely discount[ed]" any medical study which has been presented for our perusal, b/c I didn't mean to. I did actually read the links that have been provided & not 1 of them claimed that the foreskin is not an erogenous zone. Therefore, I conclude that the sensitivity of my own is not exceptional, but likely the norm, & thus, its removal from anybody else without their consent & for disputed benefits is abuse.
Are you going to answer my question about whether you do or dont support this mutilation, regardless of the medical controversy surrounding it & the anecdotal evidence of most of those of us who have 1 that contradicts the ideas that it causes medical problems & is useless anyway?
If you have the courage of your convictions, or the personal integrity to be honest, a simple yes or no will suffice. Naturally I wouldn't suggest that you not also explain your position, but the question really does require an unequivocal answer (assuming you would like to maintain any credibility here, that is).

I was going to edit my above post, but the changes to the board going on right now seem to be interfering with that function. Here it is in a seperate post then:
27jd, your appeal to US patriotism at the end of your last post was truly pathetic. Have you no self respect?

Originally posted by 27jd
Circumcision is a procedure that is best performed on an infant, who's nervous system is less developed as far as feelings of pain, and who has absolutely no clue what is going on, which completely does away with anxiety leading up to the procedure.

You're spouting oudated and disproven ideas.
A baby feels pain much more severely than an adult does, and the pain of circumcision has been proven to have a long lasting effect on the child.

The pains of youth

"In very young babies there is a very strong, exaggerated, behavioural response to pain, much stronger than you would see in an older child or adult," says Professor Fitzgerald.

As adults, when we detect a painful stimulus, the sensory nervous system in the spinal cord suppresses the signal to a certain extent, reducing the intensity of the pain and helping us to detect exactly where it is in the body. Also, when the brain receives the pain signal, it sends inhibitory information back to the spinal cord.

But in newborn babies, this system has the opposite effect.

"The brain actually enhances the pain inputs rather than suppressing them. It's a complete reverse of what happens in an adult," says Professor Fitzgerald.

I believe, personally, that there are health benefits to the procedure.

Circumcision is no longer allowed to be performed except in rare cases where it's medically indicated in New South Wales public hospitals. This is because the dangers and complication rate outweigh any minor benefit.

Perhaps the reason I feel strongly about this issue, is because the OP is basically saying that those of us who chose to have our sons circumcised to remove a small amount of skin, are somehow equal to those who allow their daughters to be basically castrated so they never feel pleasure from sex, at all. The two are not comparable, and circumcision is not mutilation. It's a minor surgical procedure.

During circumcision, you are ripping the attached protective covering off the baby's glans, causes absolute agony.
And the poor baby is tied down, unable to resist, and having no idea why it is being tortured. Then you cut off the fleshy sheath, removing 30% - 50% of the penile skin.

The risk of this operation doing any good medically is far less than the risk of it causing scar tissue to block the urethra, and that's only one possible problem.



Anyone who circumcises a child these days, now we know what harm it can do, is also risking having their child one day sue them for damage and suffering.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


I'm pretty sick of trying to reply to all you Brits. You all have one personality, Simon Cowell, and all seem to have a deep resentment towards Americans, and anything we do here is moronic and sub-par in your eyes. I also don't have the time to keep going in circles. Once again, what happens there is your business, what happens here is ours. I don't see you all railing on about useless cultural body modifications performed on adults and children in tribal areas, by people who are closer to nature than any of us. But, anything we do here in the states is wrong in your eyes. I don't care, I'm tired of arguing about penile skin, again. Maybe I'll jump back in later, until then, peace out.

reply to post by 27jdI almost resorted to trite net-speak again &, considering prevailing attitudes vs what I'm about to type, I suspect many will wish I had. However, you've got me in a particularly mellow mood, thus I can be bothered to reply cogently & in full.
This is because (& here comes the awkward bit, so if any of you are prudes, best hit "ignore" now) I've not long ago finished about 2 & 1/2hrs bonking with a 21yr old actress. She's currently asleep on the rug infront of the fire. Hey ho, she'll wake up eventually. Personally, I'm wide awake. I expect its due to the rush of phenethylamines caused by the excitement of getting with her in the 1st place (I wish I could post pix, but, apart from T&Cs, it might damage her career). Hmmm, its really cool having a rep as a skillful lover. Of course, without the sensory feedback from my foreskin, I probably couldn't "wow" partners so much that they gossip about me...
On to your post then:
Still completely failing to address the arguments put to you, not just by me, but others (@least 1 of whom is American, thus undermining your "Simon Cowell" comment). Despite being warned that such failure would totally destroy your cred &, despite having been told how utterly pathetic it is to attempt to rely upon nationalism to garner support for your position, rather than let your argument stand or fall on its merits, you still went ahead & did both anyway.
Seriously, I ask again, have you no self respect? Or is it that you are too unaware of yourself &/or stupid to understand just how pathetic you come across as?

Tune in next time for ''Foreskin Wars'' when the rivalry between the skins and the baldies comes to an end!!!!

The people who say they are 'glad' they had their skin chopped as a kid, don't you think you should have been given the choice later on when you were older? It's part of your penis being chopped for god's sake, how could you be at peace with that?

PMSL at the person in the thread who keeps describing a penis with a foreskin as looking like a dogs, not sure what penises you've seen in the past mate but if you see anyone else with a dog-like penis please send them to the Doctor because that's not normal.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Pimpish

 

Well, I suppose that depends upon your age. How old are you?
I'm 42 &, whilst my libido has (thankfully) calmed down a fair bit in the last 10yrs, I expect that I'll still want to get off a few times a week when I'm 62 (if I live that long).
My current belle is 19yrs younger than me; a pro dancer, studying for her 1st degree & paying for the extras in life by part-time lingerie modeling (quite similar to my ex-wife as it happens - hmmm perhaps I've got a fixation on beautiful intelligent women?

. ). My point here is that I'm nothing to look at & my personality isn't easy for others to deal with.
On the plus side, I'm an interesting geezer, b/c I've travelled a lot & lived an unconventional life. I'm quite tall &, despite a bit of 'middle-age spread' fairly skinny, with broad shoulders, so clothes hang well on me (when I can be bothered to dress up). I've still got a full head of thick dark hair.
On the minus side, despite the fact that I have a large vocabulary & a good undertanding of various dialects & patois english, & can get by in several other languages, in person, I find it difficult to communicate with others, unless I'm fully behind my mask of "drunken bum", which precludes the kind of honesty which is the basis of an ongoing good relationship. I've got several scars, some on my face, & my nose, which would always have grown into a bit of a lump, has been broken more times than I can remember. I have worse than stereotypically english bad teeth. I've got deep creases on my forehead & stretch marks around my waist & on my arse. I'm also a habitually scruffy bastard, who, when tings aren't going the way I want, is more foul-mouthed than is generally acceptable.
How is it then that I manage to have sex & long-term relationships with really beautiful, intelligent (&, in some cases, very rich) people?
Could it have anything to do with sex, do you reckon?

You sound like an interesting bloke and someone who would be great to share a pint with

reply to post by Death_Kron

You sound like an interesting bloke and someone who would be great to share a pint with

A pint of Scotch mate! A small amount of T&C forbidden unmentionables &... (dont freak out until you read the whole post) a tiny amount of abraded foreskin. So long as you know you're clean & can look people in the eye & say when, where & what you were last tested for, I know plenty of women that would be only too happy to do us both at the same time (so long as you're showered also).
My point here people is not that I'm some kind of stud, b/c I'm so not (These days, the kind of thing I've described wrecks me; I'm wrecked now, I just cant fall asleep. The girl I mentioned woke up briefly & was pissed off with me for leaving her to sleep on the floor instead of taking her to bed. I mean, mature bloke + young woman, there's going to be a certain amount of "father figure" involved, but I doubt my back could stand picking up my own daughter, if she crashed on the floor! Thankfully, this girl is 1/2 Thai, so she looks nothing like my kid. That would be too wierd. I just started a new thread about our breakfast in the old BTS cooking forum. I was trying to chill her boots without getting the arse myself... She's still sleeping.), it is that, when a child is born, we have no way of knowing how intelligent, good looking, or socially able s/he will be. Chances are that they will be average (because average is... well, average). Dont rob your sons of something that can make them minor rockstars.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Sweet mate, I''ll check my calender and we have a great night to look forward to!

Seriously though, I agree with everything your saying, I'll check your BTS breakfast thread as it's something that interests me and it's a shame in my opinion that not that many people post on there no more.

That leaves me with two things to do; 1.) add you as a friend and 2.) go grab a beer

Cheers!

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Again, you are wrong. because I have met many people who do the same thing. I am not different. I am one of many with the same skill. So again, please stop assuming who I am. Great fail, once again. Because you think you know every human based off a course you took. Psychology has only been as good as the person involved is willing to open themselves up to you. Please stop failing and assuming and categorizing who I am. you are not going to get anywhere on it. Not to mention it is a gross derailment of the topic at hand, making you a troll.

And not to mention you are wrong. Not all people need the same emotional support. Not all people need the same type of people to be around. Once again you are attempting to categorize people. I do not need as much emotional support ad most people. And there are plenty more like me. Millions, perhaps. It comes off as not caring. I very much so do care. The simple fact is, however, that there is input and no output. I like the hug I get when I say I had a bad day. But if that person does not hug me, I go on unchanged. It does not affect me either way. Plenty of other folks are like this. And people like you love to categorize us as flawed. Perhaps it is not that we are flawed, but that you are simply desperate to cast out anything that does not go with your views.

I think Immanuel Kant put it well. When something does not go with your views, you backtrack to logic. Your logic is flawed. You assuming your textbooks and studies are right. The fact is that you are not dealing with particle physics nor are you dealing with gravity nor chemistry. You are dealing with the mind. That, of which, is different for all people. To attempt to categorize me is to automatically fail. Because to attempt to categorize any human being beyond the most basic tenets of race and religions is to deny us our individuality and to make us drones.

How about this. Stop derailing the thread. Stop desperately trying to cast me off as flawed. Accept that not everybody is the same. Oh sure plenty makes us alike. Society would not exist without it. But we are not categorizes. We are individuals. Stop assuming and go visit the real world, not the fake one your textbook made for you. Every attempt to analyze me has failed, and you just move on to the next blank term, and yes, indeed, goggled blank term, that matches the new definition. Take not of this pattern. You recategorized me every time I expand on who I am. I am never the same. I am always different, somehow flawed. Some new description in your googled parameters. Perhaps the amount of terms shows the truth. The more you know about people the more categories you need. Until we all have our own category, stand alone, and nobody is normal but the one making the categories. What's that you called, special and unique fallacy of some kind? Congratulations. You are now there. You've made yourself alone in your divided view of the world.

Think about those words. perhaps your whole life view is flawed.

reply to post by mryanbrown


The troll went off topic and I unfortunately followed him. Sorry.

"According to new research, male circumcision not only reduces the risk of transmitting the virus that causes AIDS, but it also limits the spread of herpes simplex and human papillomavirus -- two venereal diseases associated with the AIDS virus, as well as cervical and penile cancers.

Herpes simplex type 2, also known as genital herpes, and human papillomavirus, or HPV, are the most common venereal diseases.

HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, particularly in the developing world where screening for the cancer is often not available. Medical experts say genital herpes is a gateway to the AIDS virus because it causes open sores.

In two studies of about 5,500 HIV-negative males in Uganda, researchers found that circumcision reduced the infection rate of genital herpes by 35 percent, compared to men who were not circumcised. The research also demonstrated the procedure reduced the risk of human papillomavirus transmission by 28 percent.

Thomas Quinn of the U.S. National Institutes of Health led the research, which confirms other smaller studies.

Quinn says, because circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission, researchers hoped it might do the same for HPV and genital herpes. "You know, when the results were all in, we were pleasantly surprised that there was a significant reduction for both of those viruses," he said.

Researchers found that circumcision did not significantly reduce the risk of syphilis, another common venereal disease.

Previously studies have shown that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60 percent.

Quinn says circumcision is a powerful weapon against HIV, HPV and genital herpes.

"It underscores the importance of circumcision in decreasing susceptibility to three viruses. And, they are all sexually transmitted viruses, always deleterious effects to the health of the individuals," he said.

The World Health Organization estimates that 630 million people are infected with human papillomavirus. The number of new genital herpes cases is unknown because the virus can be spread from person to person without any apparent symptom.

"There are groups, cultures, countries, peoples' religions who may not be as amenable to circumcision as others. And, they are trying to make (a) decision as to the strength of the recommendation for circumcision," said Anthony Fauci, who heads the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases which helped fund the research.

Fauci says the study should help convince individuals who are leery of circumcision that the procedure provides important health benefits.

"The data that were accumulated into this study now just fortify the scientific rationale for using circumcision as a means of prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including importantly, HIV but now also of importance human papillomavirus and genital herpes," he said.

Fauci expects the findings will lead to funding for circumcision programs, even in the most remote parts of the world, to pay for state-of-the art facilities to perform the operation under safe and sanitary conditions."

www.voanews.com...

reply to post by Gorman91Well, I'm back in that mellow mood (guess why? *), so I intend to address your comments comprehensively. This may take a few posts.
[*I crashed out in the eve, only to be woken by the actress shortly thereafter in full pissed off mode, because I hadn't woken her in time to get a train home (not that she'd asked me to). I'll confess to you lot, but not her yet, that I did do this deliberately b/c a) she's just come off a hectic 10day rehearsal followed by 4days of demanding matinee & evening performance, a wrap up party, going out to kick it with me, followed by more sex than, I suspect, she's used to: she badly needed the rest. However, more importantly to me, b) my belle gets back from London tomorrow am &, tho I'm not sure if the actress will go for it, if she does, the 3 of us will have a proper party. It only took a 1/2 grapefruit & melon, some cashews + champagne to mollify her, but something must be going for me b/c she was happy to resume where we left off. She's sleeping again: hey ho! Regardless, I expect that my belle will drag the futon matress in front of the fire & expect me to be willing & able. By Tues am, I'll be about ready for some kind of care facility. You know what I say?
"While there's moonlight & music & love & romance, let's face the music... & dance!" Or to put it another way, "There'll be plenty of time to sleep when I'm dead."]
Oh yeah, that little bit of skin has more than earned its keep!
As for "derail" & "troll", as I've said before: typical of the online-defeated. Perhaps you'd care to address a point, unequivocally, that I've made for a change? To whit: what is OT about discussing the experience of using the thing that is the topic of discussion? I asked this before, but nobody came up with an answer. Still, if you can present a logical argument, naturally, I'll consider it (also naturally, I'm not going to hold my breath !).

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Hey guess what.

90% of that was trolling and off topic.

the 10% that was on topic was answered.

Hello mr. troll. Get back on the track.

reply to post by Gorman91

So again, please stop assuming who I am.

This is interesting, b/c it will serve to illustrate several points. You went on to claim that I could not make up my mind about which label to apply to you. As you've said, the human mind is a complex thing. The labels I have used are "counter-dependant", "Special & Different" & "King Baby". These are not mutually exclusive sequential ideas (especially since the last 2 mean the same thing). According to the consensus arrived at by decades of clinical practice & research, just less than 9/10 of us are, in laymans terms, nuts. The question then becomes, what mixture of flavours of nuts are we? Before you lose the ability to juggle all these ideas @once, here's another label: "projection". In this context, it means that you have understood my posts purely subjectively & then assumed that I must have the same motives you would've had, if you'd said the same. Is it surprising then that your quote is an example of exactly what you're complaining about?
In fact, I've never studied psychology formally. I have however made use of therapy, on & off, for over 20yrs. I thus became very interested in psychology, psychiatry, sociology &, more recently, criminology (My belle is studying it, so I get to read her course materials when she's away working. It makes for bizarre but interesting pillow talk!). I've always been fascinated by philosophy &, to an extent, theology. Also, I am what is now called "bi-polar". I hesitate to say "suffer from" or "disorder" (& please also note that I did not call you "flawed" or use any other unhelpful language: I said you have "issues") b/c, on the up, I far from suffer; its the downs that're the problem. Still, there's always some new drug &/or therapeutic technique that pros want to try out. Eventually, they always become more irritating than simply being bummed out, for no apparent reason all the time.
(Cont later: busy)

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Still off topic.

What does any of it have to do with circumcision? What does any of it have to do with your claim that I could not possibly know how something is that I do not have.

Get on the train tracks boy. You're not is psychology. topics. Your in circumcision topics.