Circumcision is Unnatural and should be class as Child Mutilation.

There are some reasons for circumcision. Most of those reasons are tied to poor hygiene, being poor, and cultures in which they are trying to grapple with extreme sexual violence leading to vast numbers of their population being forced to live with forced STDs.

There is no ethical reason to relieve a child of a body part they may want and need, when they can and could make that decision on their own later with no consquences.

Your fetish isn't a sufficient reason to relieve a child of their body part.

Male circumcision - one of the best examples of cultural acceptance and protection of a sociopathology.

reply to post by antar


It's not that much of an effort to have a clean penis if you shower regularly. Maybe that's true in America where a lot of people are circumcised, but I think the opposite would be true here in the UK or other countries.

Originally posted by Xavialune

Originally posted by Aeons
There are better ways to deal with a tight foreskin than cutting it off However, he was an adult so if he prefered cutting it off to looking into those options that's his right. I think its a bit of over-kill for a need for some psychologoical help and picking up a book about it - but hey.

Your fetish preference in screwing isn't a sufficient reason to lop off a body part.

edit on 2011/2/24 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

If the foreskin had only been repaired, it still would have been too tight. What other way to deal with it is there? If you know, why dont you tell us. He would have had the same problem over and over if it had not been removed.

This forum is an inappropriate place to educate you on sexuality and anatomy.

But let me give you another example which one could find applicable.

Skin grows. Skin expands. When one gets fat, their skin expands to cover it. When consistently applies mobility to a piece of skin, it expands. When one breaks the muscle tissues, this is how muscles are made to strengthen and get larger.

Mull the concept. There are books, shows, radio personalities, and websites on the matter. You can go find them.

What exactly do you think that all the humans before circumcision and in areas that don't practic it did and do? Medical reasons for this are few and far between.

reply to post by TechUnique


nasty thing to do to a little boy...
I FOR SURE wouldn't whant my penis mutilated
Let them be W T F ?
But , that's what they do for A LOOONG TIME , so ... let them mutilate their children!
THEY AREN'T MINE !

reply to post by TechUnique




Now you tell me !

reply to post by Griffo


Ok granted you are right on that whether a man is or is not circumcised. I read up a bit on this issue and now understand to my surprise that it is no longer custom in the UK for men to become circumcised. I suppose after a lengthy time it would become unnatural to see a man without foreskin if that is what is the norm.

I have worked in healthcare for the elderly and have seen and smelled non circumcised men and perhaps it was their health related problems but I saw white milky junk down there I had to clean and it was offensive to me so I figured that all men who did not have the operation the same.

I do not see it as mutilation either, I see it as beautification, like cosmetic surgery. I know it sounds crazy but the few I have seen just freaked me out, I was unprepared for it and it just threw me for a loop and I was not impressed as the Queen has said and she agrees with me too.

reply to post by Aeons


The lady in your avatar would disagree with your stance on sociopathy and self beautification. If a person has a little nip and tuck to look better, feel better what is the harm?

reply to post by antar


Shall we lop off all the nasty saggy old man balls too then? You know, for beautification?

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by Aeons

 

The lady in your avatar would disagree with your stance on sociopathy and self beautification. If a person has a little nip and tuck to look better, feel better what is the harm?

If you're an adult, and that's your fetish, then off you go.

However, "beautification" of an infant penis is just creepy.

reply to post by Xavialune


The United States has one of the highest percentage of circumcised males in the world, a little over 60%.

Canada has approximately 40%, dropping by roughly 5% every generation...

Circumcision in Canada has been falling even faster since the government deemed it non medical in nature and no longer covered by healthcare. Most doctors in my area charge a very hefty fee for it, and most recomend that the parents witness a circumcision prior to having it done to their infant.

This may be why American girls tend to prefer cut, while girls from around the world prefer uncut...we all tend to prefer what is considered 'normal'.

Edit to add:

There is no serious scientific backing for pro or anti circumcision. This is why the government of Canada deemed it non medical. However, there are some infections/defects that can be solved by circumcision. Most of the infections are caused by lack of hygeine, defects are, well, defects...it does happen.

This all being said, I persoanlly don't think the decision should be made by anyone other than the person affected. I have not circumcised my sons for this reason. If they feel that they want a circumcision later in life, that will be their decision to make, similar to tattoos, piercings, etc.


Edit to add again:

My numbers are out of date, Canada has recorded 13.9% of male babies as circumcised (2003).

Canada Cuts Back on Circumcision

I prefer this rate vs the 31.9% of Maternity Experiences Survey, due to one being from doctor records and one (the Mat Exp one) from a telephone survey.

Well I'm glad I'm circumsized. It seems by all the threads uncut men have this love affair with there foreskin that us cut men dont.

uncut wangs are ugly...glad my parents had me circumcised...btw my 18 yr old son says he agrees with me..

Circumcision is primative religious behaviour, practiced only in primative religious cultures. There isn't a single valid argument for the mutilation of a childs genitals. The health benefits are both exagerated and irrelevant. Lets say it was discovered that ear lobes contribute to ear infection, would you under such knowledge, then cut off your new borns ear lobes? Or if you felt it looked aesthetically better, would you do so? Would you? Of course not, it'd be absolute lunacy.

The onus is on the parents to put forward justification for the mutilation. That many females consider it aesthetically pleasing, that's not much of a justification. Infact, if we went by that argument, female genital mutilation is moral and just. Maybe we cut the labia off baby girls because men find it more sexually appealing?

It's irrational and absent of any common sense. But like all other religious traditions, it's been brainwashed into the global psych and is seen as normal practice. As opposed to the profoundly abhorrent act that it is. Anyone subjecting their children to circumcision needs a severe beating. It's paramount to torture. If you've subjected your kids to that level of barbarism, take a walk.

Going under the chop should be a decision made by adults. There's nothing wrong in itself with circumcision, the problem is the circumstances in which the practice is carried out, and for what reasons. The people okay with being circumcised are so because it's easier to convince yourself it's normal and a positive. Rather than accept you've been victim to unethical barbarism. By your own parents, no less!

There isn't a single argument for circumcision that stands up to logical scrutiny. If somebody wants to be circumcised it's a decision to be made when they come of age. The reality is if you didn't mutilate children at birth, not many would opt for the procedure, as the benefits don't defeat the cons. It's fascist pseudo-science carried out by religious lunatics. You're denying people freedom of choice, and inflicting tremendous pain.

A cosmetic amputation, performed on the back of cultural myths. Paramount to giving your child a nose-lift.

If it circumcision was what the pro-circumcision mob have you believe, they'd allow their children to make the choice later on in life. That they need to force it on their kids, physically, says it all.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
It's an incredibly traumatic surgery and the older you get the worse it gets, which is why it's done as young as possible because the child can't actually feel the acute pain an adult would, and it will quickly be forgotten.

And to think this person is argueing in favour of circumcision.

Torture your children young, ladies and gentleman. So they won't remember or question the barbarism. Because if we let these kids grow up and have choices, they wouldn't put themselfs through, and i quote, "incredibly traumatic surgery" and "acute pain".

Even the arguments in favour of child circumcision are self defeating!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Why not ask a majority of the girls in your surrounding area, whether they prefer to have cut or uncut men? I assure you, the number of women who prefer cut, is staggering! ( I know, I did this as a research assignment years ago )

Many men dont know how to properly bathe themselves, much less clean their " member " correctly~ I know girls who have told me that most men whom are uncut, that they experienced had an " odor ", and the females pleasure was limited.

Besides?, what difference does it make...I mean honestly....most people don't even have religious views that get it done anyway....are you going to suggest they are going to hell now?

Why not go round and ask men if they prepare a designer-vagina. The anwser is overwhelmingly yes. So how about we start mutilating our childrens female genitalia. Because it looks better for men.

What a profound way of thinking. Infact, It would be considered absolutely perversed to use that line of reasoning.

We are human beings. If we do anything, it's "natural." It isn't natural for us to clip our fingernails and toenails, either, yet we do it. Cooking food isn't natural. Tattoos and ear piercing isn't natural. But it is if we do it.

We're an animal that does ritualistic, symbolic things. It's our nature do to them. Circumcision is no different than a hundred other things we do.

Somewhere there's a cause that deserves much more attention than this.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

The foreskin "can" be pulled back, but you won't get any more pleasure than the limited amount one would have anyway. The more skin you have, the less stimulation you have. No foreskin makes for a more stiff and rigid penis, and that means more friction once inside, and that means more bliss.

One of the reasons some men don't like condoms is because it makes for less friction and less pleasure. All that unnecessary skin does the same thing.

As for cleanliness, there are hordes of medical testimony on that.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

The foreskin moves back and forth over the head. It's nothing like a condomn. Your line of reasoning highlights an absolute ignorance to the workings of the penis and vagina.

I'd go as far as saying you just made that up. Because it's not comparable. A condomn is nothing like foreskin.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
To liken this to female circumcision is flat out ignorant. One removes the ability to climax; the other doesn't.

Actually there's varying levels and degrees of female circumcision. It doesn't necessarily remove the ability to climax at all.

In that case, we can assume you support female genital mutilation?

reply to post by NadaCambia

Do I "support" it? What does it matter what I think? Do you support nose piercing?

Originally posted by Xavialune
Just have to chime in here and say from a woman's point of view..

Uncircumcised penises are disgusting. Sorry guys. And I'd reckon most women feel this way. Some dont care, but I'd be willing to say there arent a lot of women who actually PREFER an uncircumcised penis. But when women are speaking honestly, like perhaps with other women..it is typically the view that uncircumcised puts us off.

you cannot compare this with the mutilation of the female vagina when the clitoris is removed. that means absolutely no pleasure for the woman. for a man, its obvious pleasure is not taken away and some men you can talk to who were uncircumcised and were circumcised later in life will tell you they prefer it too.

Its up to the parent really. I'd say let the kid decide later in life, but I've known some guys like that and being circumcised later in life has psychologically scarred some of them...so maybe thats not the best idea.

So what if it is, are you a lesbian? A protruding labia is hardly aesthetically pleasing, but no man would suggest it needs removing for that reason.

I think it's just typical of the superificial female. Forever obsessed with artificial enhancements and appearance. What would you think of somebody who cut off their little girls labia, because the average man doesn't find it attractive?

So yes, you can compare it. You're ignorant to female genital mutilation, go read about it.