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

This is my first post on this site, so I'm happy that I get to talk about my penis. I am uncircumcised, and glad for the fact. I have never had any of the falsely-claimed health, or social-issues that are used to promote this butchery. Plus, that extra half-inch comes in handy from time-to-time.

It is ironic that parents would go to lengths to make sure their daughters were not "mutilated", but then upon reaching 17 years of age, their daughters willingly mutilate themselves:

* Ink injected into their skin (tattoos), gotta have that "tramp stamp" so the kid down the block has a nice design to look down at while he mounts your daughter like a kennel dog.
* Pierced ears. These days you are a prude if you only have one hole in the bottom of your ear, gotta have at least 2, and also some up along the lobe while at it. What's a little pain and body destruction when you get bling in return!
* Pierced other parts. Tongue, lip, nose, cheek, navel, nipples, and yes, even the clitoris. More pain, more bling!
* Plastic surgery. Nose jobs, boob jobs, liposuction, tummy tucks, facelifts, collegen injections, botox. Gotta try to look like they think everyone thinks they should look like.

Yeah, it's a good thing we put so much effort into keeping their body pristine, not like they will mess it up later

P.S. Yes I know those things are her choice to make, I was just being sarcastic.

I keep hearing about these so called benefits of circumcision but I don't see any evidence.. just theories from people who defend their parents' decision to mutilate them at young age. The only "bad" part of being uncut is that your unit can get dirty easier, but that is not a problem whatsoever if you have the decency to at least shower once every couple of days.

If we are born with it, then it is there for a reason. I wouldn't want the sensitive part of my package be exposed all the time and come in contact with underwear, and with time lose sensitivity. But hey, that's just me.


But never mind my argument, this thread is going in the wrong direction. To get back on topic, female mutilation is only acceptable if it is self-afflicted and not performed under any kind of duress. What people do with their own bodies is their business.

This post is one I will address:

Originally posted by 19872012
This is one case where feminists can be kind of stupid. How can female circumcision be a crime against humanity and represent female oppression while male circumcision is just routine medical procedure? DOUBLE STANDARD!

Are you really incapable of learning human ananatomy and understanding the difference between cutting of skin of a male member, minor surgery, and removing the whole female member and much tissue and other genetalia, which would be akin to removign parts of the testicles too, which is major surgery! In addition, due to the primitive surgery conditions, the male survives in large numbers, huge numbers of deaths and infections to the females due to the barabaric major surgery performed!

In addition, the men who survive still have orgasms.

the woman do not, and have no pleasure out of sex.

To do this barbaric thing would be equivalent to cutting off a mans member and most of his testicles, in addition and since its done to take away natures gift of sexual pleasure to women, it is amount to RAPE. To think you may use someone for your sexual pleasure, circumsized or not, when she after being lucky enough to survive this horrendous procedure, is being deprived of any normal funcitoning. It has no health benefits and is EVIL.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent

personal parts of their bodies amputated for the sole purpose of depriving them of their natural right to experience the exquisite range of sensual pleasure God intended them to have.

i am circumvented, nevertheless, i have a great sex life, i have 3 children, and never had any problems with experiencing sexual pleasure...

personally i think it is disgusting to imagine that some urine would stay within the foreskin of my penis, every time i take a pee..so i definitely feel more hygienic

Originally posted by frozenspark
If we are born with it, then it is there for a reason.

According to The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus would agree with you.

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother.

An uncircumcised man has his penis draped in ~15 square inches of skin as sensitive as lips or eyelids.
The circumcised man doesn't know what he's missing.
*Snip*


MOD EDIT & NOTE:
Link to graphic site snipped due to ATS Terms & Conditions of Use (1b)

I have 2 boys and decided not to get them cut at birth. I also think it is barbaric and based on cultural and religious beliefs.
The doctors tried to talk us into it, saying they would fit in better , and they would wonder why they are different from Dad.
If my boys are uncomfortable with their foreskin they have the choice to get it removed when they are old enough to decide that. That is exactly what I will tell then if/when they start asking.
They usually DO NOT give the babies pain meds when this is done, well they didn't, they may have started to do so recently. that I do not know for sure. They strap them down with straps across their heads, chest and legs and cut it off.

I did not want my childrens 1st memories , or feeling of this world to start with that.

reply to post by Blazer


Good post and how true.

Two of my three sons have no tatoos or piercings.

My oldest, yes the problem one in many of my posts has two tattoos, one of barb wire around his upper arm and on the other arm a really beautiful, almost photographic quality picture of his daughter with the words - Always daddy's little girl.

Ya know, I changed their diapers very often and completely clean them, then use this thick white fishy smelling oitment (really good but stunk) so their little bums never had a rash. Followed them around 24/7 to make sure they never fell or got hurt and then the oldest one comes over with these tattoos.............the one must have taken hours and hours of ink filled needles piercing his arm.

But, he was 30 and old enough to make this decision on his own.

He's also now got a motorcycle so hopefully he remains safe. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aa681fe5337e.gif[/atsimg]

reply to post by Kailassa


I agree that nature doesnt make mistakes. That the male loses some sensitivity and pleasure from the procedure. I even wonder if there is added protection from injury with the extra skin.

reply to post by gullywampas


I'm honored that your very first post was on my thread.

Your reply made me laugh................

Reduced risk of penile cancer and urinary tract infections? Hah. I'd like to see the study that proved this. If this were the case, our species would've went extinct long before the practice of circumcision was ever started.

That's like saying cutting off your earlobes reduces the risk of ear infection, or cutting off your lips reduces the risk of cold sores.

Circumcision is all about vanity, plain and simple. We are born with all of our pieces intact for a reason, are we not? If it posed a health risk, we would have evolved without a foreskin. If anything, circumcision is the health risk. Who are we to decide which parts of the body pose a health risk? Hell, every medical opinion in history gets flipped upside down eventually (sometimes, regretfully.) Personally, I'd trust nature before I'd ever trust a doctor with hand-me-down knowledge.

As far as hygiene goes, it's all about the individual. If you're too lazy to wash your pecker, it doesn't matter how much skin you have hanging off the end.

Really makes you wonder: at some point, some guy decided to circumcise himself, and this practice started. This guy was probably like...."oh no! what have I done???!!!"..."maybe if I mutilite my kids and spread the word, nobody will notice." Classic cognitive dissonance.

Female circumcision deprives the female of sexual pleasure.
Male circumcision does not. Therefore there is no easy comparison.

Female circumcision is among the greatest evils ever to spring from the
mind of man. It is a jealous deprivation of sensual pleasure to a human
being to ensure said human being will not be tempted by infidelity.

We only get one chance at life and sensual pleasure is the greatest
pleasure we are provided with. It drives our every action and impulse.
You can have your music, or fine food, or breathtaking sights...I will
choose sensual pleasure over these minor pleasures everytime.

A life deprived of the experience of sensual pleasure is a crime.
And anyone who believes otherwise is a criminal...

Male circumcision as a means to prevent later infections

Why don`t we just remove their tonsils and appendix while we are at it ....




Any traumatic surgery on newborns effects the child's sensitivity to temperature and increases pain sensitivity in later life .



===============================================================================

Monty Python - Isn`t it awfully nice to have a penis- song

Originally posted by dragonridr
The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.
Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this.
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics.

Where did you hear it would prevent or reduce the risk of STDs? How does it prevent hiv or STDs? That is a load of crap. Its a piece of skin not a condom. Your bodly secretions and hers or his are still mixing. The only reasonable argument for it is the appearance. If people do it for relegious reasons they need to wait to see if there child will grow into faithful obedience to there relegion. Then they can opt to have it done.



MOD NOTE: Above quoted Lifted from here

Cant help but wonder where the studies of trauma come into play. I mean I was circumcised I don't feel traumatized. How and where do I find information of how I have been emotionally damaged?

@ ofhumandescent

I applaud your courage in coming to the realization that circumcision is mutilation and a crime against our children. As you can see from responses in this thread many parents just can't admit to themselves that they mutilated their own children. Many men who have been circumcised at birth cannot admit to themselves that they were mutilated. Never underestimate the power of denial.

The foreskin is estimated to contain between 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings, the entire intact penis has between 40,000 - 50,000. That means circumcision removes between 20 - 50% of the penis' nerve endings depending on how much skin is cut off. Studies have shown that the most sensitive areas of the intact penis are in the foreskin and that they are more sensitive than the most sensitive areas of a circumcised penis which are usually near the circumcision scar.

Studies have shown male infants who are circumcised showed less of a tolerance to pain in subsequent vaccine injections, these infants cried louder and for longer. The trauma of circumcision is firmly imprinted on the psyche of men.

Infant males are far less likely to get urinary tract infections compared to infant girls regardless of whether they are circumcised or not. Penile cancer is a very rare disease that affects men in their 70's long after their sexual prime and long after they reached the age of consent and could decide for themselves whether or not to be circumcised. Prevention of STDs through the use of condoms is far and away a better method than circumcision for STD prevention.

People who continue to argue in favor of circumcision after knowing the facts (and few know the facts) are just in denial. They do not want to admit that circumcision takes away the full natural sensation sex was meant to have. They do not want to admit to themselves that they mutilated their own children. They do not want to admit to themselves that they were mutilated. It is a sad state of affairs.

I have a guiding ethic in my life, "your body, your property, your choice" it makes it pretty clear to me which side of the infant circumcision debate to be on.

Reply to post by ofhumandescent

This is funny.. I wad just talking about how I wondered if some one with foreskin felt discriminated against when tv shows make jokes about hoe weird it is..
Personally I think In this day in age the cleanlines part is just dookie, people probably clean up at least once a day now.
Plus, for those who did get the axe, wont ever have a real orgasm .


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I use to be in favor of circumcision before I actually had to write a research paper on the topic. Now this is a topic that I am passionate about. The ignorance must be denied! There is no doubt in my mind that this is just cosmetic surgery. If you want your son to look like his daddy, dress them up in the same clothes and get them matching haircuts

The fact is that you are depriving your son of fully experiencing one of the greatest pleasures of his human existence. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread already, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. My opinion is that we should at least give our sons the choice to get circumcised. If they don't like the way their penis looks or feels, then by all means chop chop. As you may have guessed, I was cut at birth and am upset that I never had the opportunity to experience my body the way God made it.

And I know that some women aren't fond of the way an uncircumcised penis looks, but I think our society is to blame on that one. If we can possibly change the standard (circumcision) by educating people, women will be exposed to more uncircumcised men and thus more likely to be accepting of the appearance.

All I'm saying is give us a bleepin chance to make this decision. I'll concede that there are extreme cases where circumcision must be done, but for the most part, it is, by definition, unnecessary.

My partner was circumcised due to injury.

He said it felt better after circumcision. Doesnt miss his foreskin at all.

I was circumcised at 13 or 14 years of age. Experience is most unpleasant but at least you get quickly used to it. Infant "surgery" has debatable justification but comparing it with female butchering is most absurd. I went through quite a painful process but what they do to girls is much worse, skin is one thing... choppin the whole thing off is another.