# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Don't make fun of circumcised men!

## PaulConventionWV

After not even realizing that this debate was on the internet for 20 years, I have done a little research on circumcision and I have decided there is not much difference between the two.  That being said, whether or not this is true, the negative language needs to stop.  Everytime I hear people talk about their anecdotes and call circumcised men "mutilated" and absolutely insist on referring to uncircumcised men as "intact, natural, normal", it can mess with a guy's mind.  

Using such harsh language is a form of judgment to me.  It's hurtful, unnecessary, and not least of all, unfounded as of yet.  Saying we can't perform and that we are missing something may or may not be true.  It certainly hasn't stopped any men from trying.  The language, however, is distracting and a schtick that one uses to win an argument at the expense of a man's self-esteem and masculinity.  It's really damaging to hear all these things about circumcised men, as if they were completely castrated, when 80% of men in the 80s (including me) were circumcised.  It's not cool to call someone's penis "mutilated" and implying we're not normal because we have less foreskin than some people.  

It's a sensitive issue, more than some people realize, and I think it needs to be said.  I have not lost any confidence in myself, thankfully, but I can definitely understand the detriment it has on a man's psyche to be thought of as some kind of freak for being circumcised.

/rant

----------


## ninepointfive

missing those nerve endings makes one wonder what could have been - but it probably helps you last longer. 




and in regards to the sentiment of the post, it's kinda like being called a kook or conspiracy theorist. Just gotta shake your head and move on - not let it matter.

----------


## tod evans

Both my heads are bald and quite frankly I could care less what anybody else thinks about it.

I'm long past getting my feelings hurt over others opinions...

----------


## brandon

Sounds like you're suffering from Penis envy.

----------


## Acala

What is really needed is a catchy perjorative term for having been circumcised.  Then, once it catches on and those of us who were cut have acted all offended for awhile, we can adopt it for our own use.  "Scardick, PLEASE!"

----------


## The Free Hornet

> It's a sensitive issue...


But not as sensitive as it used to be, AMIRITE?

----------


## youngbuck

From my experience, a typical chick is more likely to think circumcision is normal than not.  I've also heard women say that circumcised feels better to them.  

Regardless, it's about the last thing on my mind.

----------


## fletcher

Is this post serious?  I've never heard of anyone making fun of circumcised men.  The majority of men in the US are circumcised.

----------


## Acala

> Is this post serious?  I've never heard of anyone making fun of circumcised men.  The majority of men in the US are circumcised.


Move to the back of the bus, barehead.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is this post serious?  I've never heard of anyone making fun of circumcised men.  The majority of men in the US are circumcised.


Like many of us, the OP has probably spent far too much time in the subculture that is the only liberty movement, a wild and whacky place where you can be called a bigot for thinking that a guy in a wig shouldn't be able to lounge around naked in a woman's sauna because somehow you are a "bigot" and infringing on his "rights".

----------


## phx420

as a circumcised man, i just want to say that it still feels great when performing its essential duties

----------


## dannno

> as a circumcised man, i just want to say that it still feels great when performing its essential duties


Ya don't worry OP, it will happen for you some day, and when it does I assure you it will feel great.

----------


## amy31416

Pfft. I had to put up with the small boobs jokes, I'm sure you can handle it. Plus, most women prefer circumcised.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Is this post serious?  I've never heard of anyone making fun of circumcised men.  The majority of men in the US are circumcised.


LOL, it's probably more about talking about penises in the RPF again.  Starting a thread with the word penis in it always gets some mileage.

----------


## Travlyr

> LOL, it's probably more about talking about penises in the RPF again.  Starting a thread with the word penis in it always gets some mileage.


That's for sure. In my early days at RPF I titled a serious thread about Penal Bonds which bind elected officials to their oath of office, and I quickly learned that very few RPF guys know the difference between penal and penis. I asked the mods to delete the thread.

----------


## tod evans

> Pfft. I had to put up with the small boobs jokes, I'm sure you can handle it. Plus, most women prefer circumcised.


I know I'm not alone in preferring small breasted women, when you get to be my age they're far less likely to point toward the floor..

----------


## Dr.3D

> That's for sure. In my early days at RPF I titled a serious thread about *Penal Bonds* which bind elected officials to their oath of office, and I quickly learned that very few RPF guys know the difference between penal and penis. I asked the mods to delete the thread.


They probably thought you were talking about skin bridges.  LOL

----------


## ninepointfive

> I know I'm not alone in preferring small breasted women, when you get to be my age they're far less likely to point toward the floor..


but two nipples at the same time is a huge plus

----------


## tod evans

> but two nipples at the same time is a huge plus


For what?

Do you stick them in your ears so you don't have to listen?

----------


## amy31416

> I know I'm not alone in preferring small breasted women, when you get to be my age they're far less likely to point toward the floor..


I actually learned that I prefer it that way pretty quickly after joining the track/cross country team, and having a best friend with enormous ones who couldn't find clothes very easily. Plus, there's the leering.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

You were mutilated.  Whether or not it hurts your feelings, that's the truth - so you should do something about it.

Women who are anti-circumcision, as far as the ones I have come into contact with and talked with, would never shame a man for being circumcised.  The point of the matter is it was a choice that was made for you and it shouldn't have been so.  The men in my life have majority been circumcised, and shaming them is completely out of the question.  The argument of intactivists isn't to shame men into believing they are less of a man and I have never once in my life met a woman intactivist that would ever do that.

----------


## TheGrinch

Ummm what? 

Why would I care if some dude whose thing looks like an ant-eater with a turtle-neck doesn't like the combat-helmet look?

----------


## tod evans

Most guy will agree that a simple kiss sooths the boo-boo..





> You were mutilated.  Whether or not it hurts your feelings, that's the truth - so you should do something about it.
> 
> Women who are anti-circumcision, as far as the ones I have come into contact with and talked with, would never shame a man for being circumcised.  The point of the matter is it was a choice that was made for you and it shouldn't have been so.  The men in my life have majority been circumcised, and shaming them is completely out of the question.  The argument of intactivists isn't to shame men into believing they are less of a man and I have never once in my life met a woman intactivist that would ever do that.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Most guy will agree that a simple kiss sooths the boo-boo..


From my experience, it tends to increase the swelling.

----------


## jj-

> Plus, most women prefer circumcised.


You hurt me. Stop it. I feel damaged that my parents didn't cut it and it's their fault I'm inadequate. Alright, gonna become a man right now.

----------


## amy31416

> You hurt me. Stop it. I feel damaged that my parents didn't cut it and it's their fault I'm inadequate. Alright, gonna become a man right now.


Informed/educated women prefer uncircumcised. Better?

----------


## amy31416

> You hurt me. Stop it. I feel damaged that my parents didn't cut it and it's their fault I'm inadequate. Alright, gonna become a man right now.


Informed/educated women prefer uncircumcised. Better?

----------


## Dr.3D

> You hurt me. Stop it. I feel damaged that my parents didn't cut it and it's their fault I'm inadequate. Alright, gonna become a man right now.


Break out the pinking shears.

----------


## acptulsa

> Break out the pinking shears.


Real men use straight razors.

Don't you dare sneeze!

----------


## Dr.3D

> Real men use straight razors.
> 
> Don't you dare sneeze!


Thought the ladies might like the sort of decorative zigzag line it leaves.

----------


## acptulsa

> Thought the ladies might like the sort of decorative zigzag line it leaves.

----------


## jj-

> Informed/educated women prefer uncircumcised. Better?


Too late. It's gone.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Too late. It's gone.


Hope you saved the leather.  I understand if you get enough of those, you can have a wallet made that when rubbed, turns into a briefcase.

----------


## acptulsa

> Hope you saved the leather.  I understand if you get enough of those, you can have a wallet made that when rubbed, turns into a briefcase.


So, if you don't keep rubbing it all day, it will crush your briefs?



Isn't that kind of backwards?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Hope you saved the leather.  I understand if you get enough of those, you can have a wallet made that when rubbed, turns into a briefcase.


And shrinks down to a keychain when wet or cold.

----------


## Dr.3D

> So, if you don't keep rubbing it all day, it will crush your briefs?
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that kind of backwards?


That would work much like the space bags do.

----------


## amy31416

> Thought the ladies might like the sort of decorative zigzag line it leaves.


Sorta like "ribbed for her pleasure?"

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pfft. I had to put up with the small boobs jokes, I'm sure you can handle it. Plus, most women prefer circumcised.


Depends on what part of the world you go to.  Outside of the US, the opposite is true in most places according to surveys I've read when reading up on the topic.  It's somewhat like men's opinions about boobs.  Some guys insist on giant hooters, some say more than a mouthful is a waste.  As long as the male in question volunteered for the procedure, no one really cares AFAIK.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Sorta like "ribbed for her pleasure?"


Yeah, you've got it.

----------


## amy31416

> Too late. It's gone.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....OOOOOOO  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

----------


## SewrRatt

> You were mutilated.  Whether or not it hurts your feelings, that's the truth - so you should do something about it.


With respect, I disagree.




> mutilate:
>     to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


The foreskin is not a limb and although the quality of being essential is subjective, I think the consensus would be that it's not. I think it's reasonable for someone to object to the word 'mutilated' being used in this case.

----------


## Aldanga

This thread is pure gold.

----------


## amy31416

> With respect, I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> The foreskin is not a limb and although the quality of being essential is subjective, I think the consensus would be that it's not. I think it's reasonable for someone to object to the word 'mutilated' being used in this case.


I'm no English major, but when a person's face is slashed, broken or burned, they're considered "mutilated." No limb or other essential part is lost. That said, I do think that "mutilated" is an intentionally emotional word to attempt to shock the other person into some sort of awareness of what it could be considered.

In regards to this issue, I still just can't believe that this practice started in the first place--who thinks this $#@! up?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> With respect, I disagree.


The english language disagrees with you.
*mu·ti·late*   [myoot-l-eyt]  Show IPA
*verb (used with object),* *mu·ti·lat·ed,* *mu·ti·lat·ing.**1.*to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing orirreparably damaging parts: _Vandals mutilated the painting._

*2.*to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essentialpart.







> The foreskin is not a limb and although the quality of being essential is subjective, I think the consensus would be that it's not. I think it's reasonable for someone to object to the word 'mutilated' being used in this case.


No, the foreskin is an organ.  It's "not essential" in the same sense your eyelids are "not essential".  You can certainly live without them, but the organ won't function as nature intended.

----------


## idiom

Its very Biblical to circumcise terrorists before you get married:




> Then David sent messengers to Sauls son Ishbaal, saying, Give me my wife Michal, to whom I became engaged at the price of one hundred foreskins of the Philistines.


You can't make this stuff up.

----------


## SewrRatt

> The english language disagrees with you.
> No, the foreskin is an organ.  It's "not essential" in the same sense your eyelids are "not essential".  You can certainly live without them, but the organ won't function as nature intended.


Dude, you quoted the exact same source as me. I quoted the relevant definition - the one pertaining to people or animals. The rest is irrelevant, I'm only discussing the actual meaning of the word, and you yourself conceded that it's not technically essential.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Its very Biblical to circumcise terrorists before you get married:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make this stuff up.


And those were collected from dead Philistines.  I can't imagine doing that.

----------


## acptulsa

> This thread is pure gold.


You know, if you lose a tooth you can get a prosthetic tooth made of gold.

A bit of golden fleece might be an interesting effect.  Wonder how it would look..?

----------


## Barrex

I probably would if I knew a joke about them.....


Joke unworthy? (is that insulting?)

----------


## amy31416

> And those were collected from dead Philistines.  I can't imagine doing that.


Well--we still have soldiers that'll snip off a finger as a trophy, so I guess I can imagine it in a very disturbed way--what doesn't make sense to me is that someone would accept them as "payment."

WTF did they do with them?

I guess it's probably a more stable currency than the US dollar, since it actually takes some work to get them though.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well--we still have soldiers that'll snip off a finger as a trophy, so I guess I can imagine it in a very disturbed way--what doesn't make sense to me is that someone would accept them as "payment."
> 
> WTF did they do with them?


Make a jacket that turns into an overcoat when rubbed?

----------


## SewrRatt

> WTF did they do with them?


The original pork rind? Pork really is unclean!

----------


## Dr.3D

> The original pork rind? Pork really is unclean!


Philistines were considered unclean at the time too.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Make a jacket that turns into an overcoat when rubbed?


And into a leotard when wet or cold.

I can play this game all day my friend...

----------


## Dr.3D

> And into a leotard when wet or cold.
> 
> I can play this game all day my friend...


Well, maybe a skull cap.

----------


## idiom

> Well--we still have soldiers that'll snip off a finger as a trophy, so I guess I can imagine it in a very disturbed way--what doesn't make sense to me is that someone would accept them as "payment."
> 
> WTF did they do with them?
> 
> I guess it's probably a more stable currency than the US dollar, since it actually takes some work to get them though.


The King demanded David harvest them as he was trying to get David killed. David in fact killed 200 philistines in the process. It was an act of incredible bad-assery but definitely had no gay overtones. At all.

----------


## idiom

On the topic, Whale foreskin is amazing for upholstery. Soooo soft.

----------


## acptulsa

> Make a jacket that turns into an overcoat when rubbed?


The hotter your girl, the more weight you can gain without having to buy a new coat.

Makes sense...

Sorta...

----------


## Jamesiv1

> In regards to this issue, I still just can't believe that this practice started in the first place--who thinks this $#@! up?


It started as a covenant between God and the House of Abraham.  And it was 'shed a few drops of blood' as a symbol of the covenant - *not* cut the whole damn foreskin off. Take a look at a modern world map that shows where in the world males are circumcised, what percentage of the male population is circumcised, the culture and religion of that particular part of the world, and then look into how that part of the world performs the procedure.  Enlightening.

edit:
And if you really want to get a firm grip on the issue - go to YouTube and watch a procedure or two.

----------


## acptulsa

> It started as a covenant between God and the House of Abraham.  And it was 'shed a few drops of blood' as a symbol of the covenant - not cut the whole damn foreskin off. Take a look at a modern world map that shows where in the world males are circumcised, what percentage of the male population is circumcised, the culture and religion of that particular part of the world, and then look into how that part of the world performs the procedure.  Enlightening.


Oh, God.  I think this is turning into another Blame Teh Jooz For Stuff thread.

Hate it when that happens!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Dude, you quoted the exact same source as me. I quoted the relevant definition - the one pertaining to people or animals. The rest is irrelevant, I'm only discussing the actual meaning of the word, *and you yourself conceded that it's not technically essential*.


Yes, but I qualified that with the fact that the organs do not function as nature/God/etc intended when mutilated.  You can get by without eyelids or an external nose and a number of other body parts, your body wouldn't work as it was intended to.  What other body parts, to you, are okay to cut off of an infant?  How do you determine that?

----------


## angelatc

> *Don't make fun of circumcised men!*


I don't.  I make fun of the uncircumcised men.   What a bunch of whiners they are.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't.  I make fun of the uncircumcised men.   What a bunch of whiners they are.


Opposing genital mutilation is "whining"?  All those victims and intact ladies who oppose FGM must also be a bunch of whiners too.

----------


## idiom

Do piercings count as condemned genital mutilation?

----------


## SewrRatt

> Yes, but I qualified that with the fact that the organs do not function as nature/God/etc intended when mutilated.  You can get by without eyelids or an external nose and a number of other body parts, your body wouldn't work as it was intended to.  What other body parts, to you, are okay to cut off of an infant?  How do you determine that?


I actually don't think it's okay to circumcise infants. You assumed that just because I argue that words should be used correctly.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> I'm no English major, but when a person's face is slashed, broken or burned, they're considered "mutilated." No limb or other essential part is lost. That said, I do think that "mutilated" is an intentionally emotional word to attempt to shock the other person into some sort of awareness of what it could be considered.
> 
> In regards to this issue, I still just can't believe that this practice started in the first place--who thinks this $#@! up?


This is basically what I was going to say - I've seen some pretty mutilated bodies in my life, that had no limb or part lost... and they were pretty mutilated... no other word to really describe it.

----------


## SewrRatt

Disfigured is pretty good.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Disfigured is pretty good.


Nope.  Not some of the ones I've seen... disfigured is when when you can sorta tell they were at one point in time a human.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Nope.  Not some of the ones I've seen... disfigured is when when you can sorta tell they were at one point in time a human.


Well, you seem to be talking about dead people, and if they're dead they have been deprived of some essential part. You can be deprived of a limb or organ or what-have-you without it being physically removed if you lose the use of it. You could also say mangled in some cases. But on the topic, circumcision is definitely disfigurement from the subjective point of view of someone who thinks it's bad. For a person who likes it, setting completely aside the issue of non-consenting parties like children, it's body modification.

----------


## Acala

> You were mutilated.  Whether or not it hurts your feelings, that's the truth - so you should do something about it.
> 
> Women who are anti-circumcision, as far as the ones I have come into contact with and talked with, would never shame a man for being circumcised.  The point of the matter is it was a choice that was made for you and it shouldn't have been so.  The men in my life have majority been circumcised, and shaming them is completely out of the question.  The argument of intactivists isn't to shame men into believing they are less of a man and I have never once in my life met a woman intactivist that would ever do that.


"intactivist"

Hahahahahahaha!  Love it.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> Well, you seem to be talking about dead people, and if they're dead they have been deprived of some essential part. *You can be deprived of a limb or organ or what-have-you without it being physically removed if you lose the use of it*. You could also say mangled in some cases. But on the topic, circumcision is definitely disfigurement from the subjective point of view of someone who thinks it's bad. For a person who likes it, setting completely aside the issue of non-consenting parties like children, it's body modification.


So, someone with a broken arm has a mutilated arm?

And they don't have to be dead... yet.

On that note though - circumcision leaves scarring, which usually requires the removal of something or other.  Skin is an organ (simply, different tissues working together).  A male baby that is circumcised will lose ~15in of foreskin as an adult.  I wouldn't call that much skin a disfigurement, and certainly not a body modification.

----------


## Acala

> A male baby that is circumcised will lose ~15in of foreskin as an adult.


It seems a shame to make it so much smaller.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> But not as sensitive as it used to be, AMIRITE?


Thread winner.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, but I qualified that with the fact that the organs do not function as nature/God/etc intended when mutilated.  You can get by without eyelids or an external nose and a number of other body parts, your body wouldn't work as it was intended to.  *What other body parts, to you, are okay to cut off of an infant?  How do you determine that?*


Still no answers?  I am disappoint.

----------


## Danke

I reserve the right to make fun of anyone, anytime and anywhere, including barefoot boy. (although I'm not actually making fun of the practice, it is just a fetish).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Oh, God.  I think this is turning into another Blame Teh Jooz For Stuff thread.
> 
> Hate it when that happens!


It's not a "Joo" thing.  It's a "descendants of Abrahm" thing, as James said.  The descendants of Abrahm (if he actually existed-which is debated among scholars) include Muslims and the other semitic peoples.

----------


## tod evans

> A male baby that is circumcised will lose ~15in of foreskin as an adult.


Wow! If I lost 15" I'd have a vagina... Or at least a negative number.

----------


## youngbuck

> Wow! If I lost 15" I'd have a vagina... Or at least a negative number.


There's no way that number is correct, unless it's 15 _square-inches,_ which I'm guessing might be the average surface area of skin removed from an adult male.  Still makes more sense that'd it be more like 15 square cm, instead of inches.

----------


## erowe1

> Wow! If I lost 15" I'd have a vagina... Or at least a negative number.


If Ron Paul lost 15" he'd be a normal guy.

----------


## Dr.3D

> There's no way that number is correct, unless it's 15 _square-inches,_ which I'm guessing might be the average surface area of skin removed from an adult male.  Still makes more sense that'd it be more like 15 square cm, instead of inches.


From what I've heard, the amount of skin removed is about the size of a post card.

----------


## TLCTugger

> call circumcised men "mutilated" and absolutely insist on referring to uncircumcised men as "intact, natural, normal", it can mess with a guy's mind.


So you have a problem with labeling someone as mutilated, moreso than with letting him BE mutilated? 




> Saying we can't perform and that we are missing something may or may not be true.


I don't think anyone would assert that someone can't perform just because his foreskin was amputated, but in fact many men CAN'T PERFORM because of how their foreskin was amputated and allowed to heal haphazardly in a foul diaper.  




> win an argument at the expense of a man's self-esteem and masculinity.


Here's what harms a man's self-esteem: Telling him that someone else gets to decide how much penis he gets to keep and that he has no business complaining.  




> It's not cool to call someone's penis "mutilated" and implying we're not normal because we have less foreskin


When someone is circumcised (even expertly with no unintended effects) it changes sex dramatically.  They lose protection for the glans and adjacent mucosa so they're less supple and ticklishly sensitive.  They also lose the slackness that lets the sleeve of skin slink over the whole shaft and glans for a frictionless mode of stimulation that also reduces abrasion for his partner.  "Normal" sex involves these things, and without the foreskin the sex is different, not normal.  Furthermore, the foreskin itself is imbued with thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings.  

I think the challenge to one's manhood comes from the idea of having the foreskin stolen and just laying down and saying "fine" instead of fighting back or at least protesting.  Certainly to acquiesce and allow the perpetrator to repeat the crime on your offspring - willingly handed over - is the least manly thing.  The old west equivalent would be to make a hearty breakfast and polish up a saddle for the scoundrel who broke into your barn overnight to steal your horse.  A real man takes out his six-shooter and plugs the bastard.  

I think people who insist on calling the normal penis "uncircimcised" are the ones doing subtle psychological damage, to intact men.  To say that he's UN-circumcised is to imply that he's nearly correct, just waiting for that surgical fix.  You don't call healthy women's breasts unmastectomized, or people who can see unblinded.

----------


## tod evans

> I think the challenge to one's manhood comes from the idea of having the foreskin stolen and just laying down and saying "fine" instead of fighting back or at least protesting.  Certainly to acquiesce and allow the perpetrator to repeat the crime on your offspring - willingly handed over - is the least manly thing.  The old west equivalent would be to make a hearty breakfast and polish up a saddle for the scoundrel who broke into your barn overnight to steal your horse.  A real man takes out his six-shooter and plugs the bastard.


Thank you so much for this brilliant pearl of wisdom, now I can _blame_ someone for my circumcision in 1960 and I'll be validated in taking out my six-shooter and plugging the bastard...........or maybe my mother weighed in on the decision........plug her too!

Evil bastards after all these years I could have actually enjoyed sex.

----------


## TLCTugger

> From what I've heard, the amount of skin removed is about the size of a post card.


It absolutely is.  Here's the math.  The skin that's taken would have typically extended from the scar line to past the tip, AND BACK.  That's at least 1.75" each way in an average man.  The circumference of a penis that is say 1.5" across is 4.7 inches.  So the area of skin removed is (1.75 x 2) x (4.7) = 16.5 inches squared in this example.  

An index card is 3x5, or 15 square inches, so circumcision takes (conservatively) as much pleasure receptive surface as one side of an index card.

----------


## jj-

> I reserve the right to make fun of anyone, anytime and anywhere, including barefoot boy. (although I'm not actually making fun of the practice, it is just a fetish).


You'd kill your own mother if the context would make it funny. You're bad. Get your priorities straight.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL, it's probably more about talking about penises in the RPF again.  Starting a thread with the word penis in it always gets some mileage.


Yep.  Just wanted to talk about penis.  Thanks guyz!!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm no English major, but when a person's face is slashed, broken or burned, they're considered "mutilated." No limb or other essential part is lost. That said, I do think that "mutilated" is an intentionally emotional word to attempt to shock the other person into some sort of awareness of what it could be considered.
> 
> In regards to this issue, I still just can't believe that this practice started in the first place--who thinks this $#@! up?


Jews, don't you know anything?  

I don't like the words that are used.  With that being said, I probably would not do it to my son.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The english language disagrees with you.
> *mu·ti·late*   [myoot-l-eyt]  Show IPA
> *verb (used with object),* *mu·ti·lat·ed,* *mu·ti·lat·ing.**1.*to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing orirreparably damaging parts: _Vandals mutilated the painting._
> 
> *2.*to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essentialpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your eyelids are much more essential than your foreskin.  This is the thing I was trying to get to.  You are intentionally bending the issue, and it really seems like you don't have any concern for men other than to win the argument.  The foreskin is not an "organ".  Please show me that in the dictionary.  It's a very small part of an organ.  The skin is an organ, and there is much more to skin than just part of what's on the penis.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you have a problem with labeling someone as mutilated, moreso than with letting him BE mutilated?


Yeah, I guess I do.  Being "mutilated" (circumcised) is the norm these days in America.  It's just that the anti-circumcision crowds seems to be so dependent on the "shock and awe" side of the word-usage debate that they don't really use much else.  Be sensitive and stop referring to normal men as "mutilated."  Most men are circumcised, at least 80% of them in my generation were, so I would say that's pretty normal.  It's not as bad as they are trying so hard to make it sound.




> I don't think anyone would assert that someone can't perform just because his foreskin was amputated, but in fact many men CAN'T PERFORM because of how their foreskin was amputated and allowed to heal haphazardly in a foul diaper.


Not sure what a foul diaper has to do with anything.  Also, the word "amputated" is another word that that seems ridiculously emotionally charged without being grounded in fact.  It's another word where, when people think of amputated, they think of something much more severe than circumcision, so it's really skewing the picture.  It's also emasculating men needlessly when there's no evidence to suggest that sex is less pleasurable or that they are less able to ejaculate.  No essential function is lost from circumcision.




> Here's what harms a man's self-esteem: Telling him that someone else gets to decide how much penis he gets to keep and that he has no business complaining.


No, I think my example is worse.




> When someone is circumcised (even expertly with no unintended effects) it changes sex dramatically.  They lose protection for the glans and adjacent mucosa so they're less supple and ticklishly sensitive.  They also lose the slackness that lets the sleeve of skin slink over the whole shaft and glans for a frictionless mode of stimulation that also reduces abrasion for his partner.  "Normal" sex involves these things, and without the foreskin the sex is different, not normal.  Furthermore, the foreskin itself is imbued with thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings.


The head has the most nerve-endings, and you can't get off by rubbing it.  An orgasm is something that happens in the mind, mainly the hippocampus.  There's no evidence to suggest that the difference is as dramatic as you say.




> I think the challenge to one's manhood comes from the idea of having the foreskin stolen and just laying down and saying "fine" instead of fighting back or at least protesting.  Certainly to acquiesce and allow the perpetrator to repeat the crime on your offspring - willingly handed over - is the least manly thing.  The old west equivalent would be to make a hearty breakfast and polish up a saddle for the scoundrel who broke into your barn overnight to steal your horse.  A real man takes out his six-shooter and plugs the bastard.


I don't get this strange sense that I have to get revenge for it.  I can do anything a man with a foreskin can.  I can't do anything about it now anyway, so why protest?  Who am I protesting for?  Who are YOU protesting for and why does it matter to you if thousands of men down the road have slightly different sexual experiences?  It has absolutely no effect on your life if somebody else is circumcised, unless it's your son, which you have complete control over until he grows to make his own decision.  Again, what does it matter to you if somebody else's offspring has a different sexual experience than a man with a foreskin?  Unlike you, I don't see revenge as manly.  It's a very reckless and stupid thing, especially for something with so little effect on your life.   




> I think people who insist on calling the normal penis "uncircimcised" are the ones doing subtle psychological damage, to intact men.  To say that he's UN-circumcised is to imply that he's nearly correct, just waiting for that surgical fix.  You don't call healthy women's breasts unmastectomized, or people who can see unblinded.


I just don't get why people are so passionate about this at all.  It has absolutely no effect on you.  Also, the word "uncircumcised" is used because circumcision is actually normal in America right now.  Most men born in my decade had it - an overwhelming majority, in fact.  The word is used because it's subjective to the culture in which it's used.  Don't like it?  Sorry.  I still don't see why it matters to you.

----------


## Acala

> I think the challenge to one's manhood comes from the idea of having the foreskin stolen and just laying down and saying "fine" instead of fighting back or at least protesting. .


I totally protested.  I screamed "WHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" (which meant "WTF did you just do to me?? and I writhed around.  But it didn't do any good.  They took me by surprise and had me tied down.  Bastards.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Still no answers?  I am disappoint.


Yeah. NO ANSWERS. Except... wait.. you were talking directly to me, and I responded directly to the question. I guess that qualifies as NO ANSWERS these days.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

So, the way I see it, the anti-circumcisers would have us think that a major organ is amputated, we are mutilated beyond recognition, we are no longer able to enjoy sex, and the harm is so drastic that we would be completely justified in lynching any doctors who participate in this.  That is what the words are saying.  They may mean something slightly different, but they say that so people get a really warped view of circumcision, and for what?  Essentially, they're lying.

I don't give two $#@!s about the definition of these words if they're obviously being presented so that one gets a warped view of their own body.

----------


## Dr.3D

> So, the way I see it, the anti-circumcisers would have us think that a major organ is amputated, we are mutilated beyond recognition, we are no longer able to enjoy sex, and the harm is so drastic that we would be completely justified in lynching any doctors who participate in this.  That is what the words are saying.  They may mean something slightly different, but they say that so people get a really warped view of circumcision, and for what?  Essentially, they're lying.
> 
> I don't give two $#@!s about the definition of these words if they're obviously being presented so that one gets a warped view of their own body.


Don't worry about it, you will never miss what you never had.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, the way I see it, *the anti-circumcisers* would have us think that a major organ is amputated, we are mutilated beyond recognition, we are no longer able to enjoy sex, and the harm is so drastic that we would be completely justified in lynching any doctors who participate in this.  That is what the words are saying.  They may mean something slightly different, but they say that so people get a really warped view of circumcision, and for what?  Essentially, they're lying.
> 
> I don't give two $#@!s about the definition of these words if they're obviously being presented so that one gets a warped view of their own body.


Fallacious from the outset.  No one wants to prevent adults from cutting themselves up.  You can get your yang cut off completely for all I care.  The issue is mutilating a party who cannot consent.  And you can deny that circumcision is mutilation all you want, but it is.  See the definition of mutilation I posted earlier.  You may not like the word because of its connotations or whatever, but it's true.  I would argue your perception of circumcision is warped.  We've already tangled on this subject, so you should already know the evidence I've provided.  I don't feel like doing it again.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Fallacious from the outset.  No one wants to prevent adults from cutting themselves up.  You can get your yang cut off completely for all I care.  The issue is mutilating a party who cannot consent.  And you can deny that circumcision is mutilation all you want, but it is.  See the definition of mutilation I posted earlier.  You may not like the word because of its connotations or whatever, but it's true.  I would argue your perception of circumcision is warped.  We've already tangled on this subject, so you should already know the evidence I've provided.  I don't feel like doing it again.


Funny how this guy is now pretending I don't exist because I'm on his side of the argument but I still object to his use of the word "mutilated", and showed that it doesn't fit the definition that he posted. But circumcision is mutilation just because he says it is.

If your goal is really as you claim, (which I'm beginning to doubt) to get people to stop circumcising non-consenting parties, then you'll quit mutilating the English language in your misguided attempt to attack the practice of circumcision itself. The moral argument against circumcising children is already perfectly adequate, and in fact your over-the-top attack on ALL circumcision by calling it something that it's not is counter-productive and is actively alienating people who could be your allies on this issue.

Furthermore, if, as you claim, you aren't seeking to use the most inflammatory wording possible, even if you choose to cling to the idea that circumcision counts as mutilation, you'll use the word that is more specific to the situation at hand, rather than the most general. That word is circumcision, not mutilation. If you're lying, go ahead and keep using mutilation even though the definitional link is ambiguous at best and there is a much more accurate, specific word to use for this particular practice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Funny how this guy is now pretending I don't exist because I'm on his side of the argument but I still object to his use of the word "mutilated", and showed that it doesn't fit the definition that he posted. But circumcision is mutilation just because he says it is. If your goal is really as you claim, (which I'm beginning to doubt) to get people to stop circumcising non-consenting parties, then you'll quit mutilating the English language in your misguided attempt to attack the practice of circumcision itself. The moral argument against circumcising children is already perfectly adequate, and in fact your over-the-top attack on ALL circumcision by calling it something that it's not is counter-productive and is actively alienating people who could be your allies on this issue.


Nope.  I gave the definition of mutilation earlier.  It fits.  It's not mutilation because I say so-it's because it's mutilation.  You may not *like* looking at it this way, but it's true.  

Dictionaries are your friends:
*mu·ti·late*   [myoot-l-eyt]  Show IPA
*verb (used with object),* *mu·ti·lat·ed,* *mu·ti·lat·ing.**1.*to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: _Vandals mutilated the painting._

*2.*to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essentialpart.


If I were addressing a different audience, I might take a gentler tack.  However, I don't see a reason to use such language here.  I like to think I'm addressing adults here who can 'get it'.  BTW, notice I go out of my way to say that I don't care if adults voluntarily circumcise themselves if they so desire.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So, the way I see it, the anti-circumcisers would have us think that a major organ is amputated, we are mutilated beyond recognition, we are no longer able to enjoy sex, and the harm is so drastic that we would be completely justified in lynching any doctors who participate in this.  That is what the words are saying.  They may mean something slightly different, but they say that so people get a really warped view of circumcision, and for what?  Essentially, they're lying.
> *
> I don't give two $#@!s about the definition of these words if they're obviously being presented so that one gets a warped view of their own body*.


If you don't care, why are you engaging in the discussion?  Again, if you don't mind the way you look, fine.  You should have enough confidence to enjoy your body.  But you were in fact mutilated.  If you can allow newborn children to make their own decisions when they are of age about elective procedures (like circumcision) to permanently alter their bodies, we have no qualms with each other.

----------


## liberty2897

> This thread is pure gold.


Fiat penis mutilation?

I know what religious group I blame for this.  That is the worst part.  What circumcised person ever had a say if this procedure would be performed on them?

----------


## talkingpointes

I thought this argument only existed on 4chan. How can you argue about something you never knew you had and can't get back. Like the socially inept nerd crying over the girl of his dreams. However a debate on whether or not it should be done would be fine. Also I would guess a guy is lacking if this is something he spends time on caring about.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Fiat penis mutilation?
> 
> I know what religious group I blame for this.  That is the worst part.  *What circumcised person ever had a say if this procedure would be performed on them?*


My brother had his done when he was in his 40s and he asked his physician to do it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I thought this argument only existed on 4chan. How can you argue about something you never knew you had and can't get back. Like the socially inept nerd crying over the girl of his dreams. However a debate on whether or not it should be done would be fine. Also I would guess a guy is lacking if this is something he spends time on caring about.


It's amazing the kind of debates that happen on RPFs.  Especially when dannnooooo starts them.

----------


## liberty2897

> I thought this argument only existed on 4chan. How can you argue about something you never knew you had and can't get back. Like the socially inept nerd crying over the girl of his dreams. However a debate on whether or not it should be done would be fine. Also I would guess a guy is lacking if this is something he spends time on caring about.


I thought this thread was mostly for fun, but I guess most women might actually be pissed if they found out that a religous-cult that controlled most of the media and finances also had a say in what happened to their private parts at birth.  Kind of a rude awakening in a free society don't you think?  Sounds a lot like Taliban practices to me.

----------


## talkingpointes

> I thought this thread was mostly for fun, but I guess most women might actually be pissed if they found out that a religous-cult that controlled most of the media and finances also had a say in what happened to their private parts at birth.  Kind of a rude awakening in a free society don't you think?  Sounds a lot like Taliban practices to me.


I actually completely agree. I was more so speaking on the fact of men obsessing over something they have no control over. The thread is mostly fun, but I think some do take this issue seriously. In the least at least cut men are what's being played out in the media as being the more preferable of the two.

----------


## SewrRatt

> Nope.  I gave the definition of mutilation earlier.  It fits.  It's not mutilation because I say so-it's because it's mutilation.  You may not *like* looking at it this way, but it's true.  
> 
> Dictionaries are your friends:
> *mu·ti·late*   [myoot-l-eyt]  Show IPA
> *verb (used with object),* *mu·ti·lat·ed,* *mu·ti·lat·ing.**1.*to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: _Vandals mutilated the painting._
> 
> *2.*to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essentialpart.
> 
> 
> If I were addressing a different audience, I might take a gentler tack.  However, I don't see a reason to use such language here.  I like to think I'm addressing adults here who can 'get it'.  BTW, notice I go out of my way to say that I don't care if adults voluntarily circumcise themselves if they so desire.


Yeah, and I pointed out to you earlier that it's the second definition that applies to people. Just like it says, right in there. If you're going to (wrongly) apply the first definition to people, then by definition you mutilate yourself if you have a mole removed.

Taking a "gentler tack" is irrelevant. When one is speaking about an idea, they use the most specific word to describe that idea, not the most general, unless they have some ulterior motive like you OBVIOUSLY do. I don't say I own a couple of mammals, I say I own a couple of cats. I don't say my dick was mutilated, which could mean any number of heinous dick injuries, I say it was circumcised. Quit pretending you have no issues with adult circumcision while simultaneously twisting the language and insisting people think of themselves as mutilated, you primate. Of course, by your own logic, you should have no issues with me calling you a primate, right? You're a primate by definition! I couldn't possibly have some ulterior motive in calling you that instead of a person, right? Right.

----------


## TLCTugger

> Being "mutilated" (circumcised) is the norm these days in America.


For babies about half are now cut, half are left intact.  




> Not sure what a foul diaper has to do with anything.


It affects the chances for optimal healing.  Infection risk can lead to additional tissue loss, and aggressive cleaning can hurt the chances for minimal scarring.  




> the word "amputated" is another word that that seems ridiculously emotionally charged


So if I strapped you down today and sliced away a part of your body that was covered with 15 square inches would that be an amputation?   Call it what you want but that's what was done.  




> there's no evidence to suggest that sex is less pleasurable or that they are less able to ejaculate.  No essential function is lost from circumcision.


The evidence is primarily that intact men say the foreskin is the best part.  There is also quantifiable data about how sensitive the surviving parts are.  To say one can still ejaculate is to set the bar quite low.  I deserve the full symphony of sensation.  Blind me in one eye and I could still read Harry Potter, but I won't be able to enjoy the films in 3D.  




> The head has the most nerve-endings


No, it doesn't.  The foreskin does, and they're specialized light touch receptors.  See the work of Canadian pathologist John Taylor.  




> There's no evidence to suggest that the difference is as dramatic as you say.


Ask an intact man how prominently his foreskin figures into intimacy.  




> I can do anything a man with a foreskin can.


Your partner can't roll the skin forward of the glans, bunch it up, and nibble on it with lips.  S/he also can't massage your glans frictionlessly with your skin tube.   There are LOTS of options which someone else decided for you that you would never get to try.   




> I can't do anything about it now anyway, so why protest?


You could use non-surgical foreskin restoration techniques to grow back some slack and undo a lot of the damage.  

Why protest?  Why defend the rights of girls to be free of forced genital cutting?  Because I care about human rights.  While one is captive none are free to paraphrase FDR and Ghandi.  




> your son, which you have complete control over until he grows to make his own decision.


False.  For every single thing in life and in medicine proxy consent for irreversible interventions is considered unethical unless waiting for the patient's own rational informed consent would lead to harm and non-destructive options are exhausted.  The singular exception is the infant male foreskin, but it's only by custom, not for any rational reason.   The AAP for example affirms the bit about proxy consent in one of its policy statements, then completely forgets it said that when it comes to their male circumcision policy.  The fact that none of the people on the policy panel had a foreskin might have something to do with it.  




> I don't see revenge as manly.


I don't see laying down and submitting to some bully who would alter your genitals as manly either.  




> I just don't get why people are so passionate about this


Maybe watch the medical video "Functions of the Foreskin" now available on YouTube.  Infant circumcision haphazardly removes sexually valuable parts and the only person with the standing to say those parts have no value is the owner of the parts.  The AAP declared in 2011 that many presently-illegal forms of female genital cutting are far less invasive than male circumcision.  




> The word {"uncircumcised"} is used because it's subjective to the culture in which it's used.  Don't like it?  Sorry.


Well from time to time oppressed groups take back the hurtful language from their oppressors, to great social effect.   Of course there are always bullies who resist and persist with the insults, but then it becomes a great way to spot the unsympathetic and they tend to get marginalized.  

A Liberty activist should fall on the side of the male infant's right to have his genitals protected like every other of his body parts and like all the parts of everyone else's body are protected.

----------


## tod evans

> A Liberty activist should fall on the side of the male infant's right to have his genitals protected like every other of his body parts and like all the parts of everyone else's body are protected.


For all of your heartfelt positions on circumcision I believe a liberty activist should fight for the childs parents to be free to choose whether or not their son is circumcised.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Fallacious from the outset.  No one wants to prevent adults from cutting themselves up.  You can get your yang cut off completely for all I care.  The issue is mutilating a party who cannot consent.  And you can deny that circumcision is mutilation all you want, but it is.  See the definition of mutilation I posted earlier.  You may not like the word because of its connotations or whatever, but it's true.  I would argue your perception of circumcision is warped.  We've already tangled on this subject, so you should already know the evidence I've provided.  I don't feel like doing it again.


Answer me this, then: why do you care?  What effect does it have on you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nope.  I gave the definition of mutilation earlier.  It fits.  It's not mutilation because I say so-it's because it's mutilation.  You may not *like* looking at it this way, but it's true.  
> 
> Dictionaries are your friends:
> *mu·ti·late*   [myoot-l-eyt]  Show IPA
> *verb (used with object),* *mu·ti·lat·ed,* *mu·ti·lat·ing.**1.*to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: _Vandals mutilated the painting._
> 
> *2.*to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essentialpart.
> 
> 
> If I were addressing a different audience, I might take a gentler tack.  However, I don't see a reason to use such language here.  I like to think I'm addressing adults here who can 'get it'.  BTW, notice I go out of my way to say that I don't care if adults voluntarily circumcise themselves if they so desire.


I see how you just ignored the last paragraph there.  People should really quote the whole post if they're going to debate, not cherry pick what they want to respond to.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

*I'll just leave this here*.

I suggest watching the video I linked to at the bottom of the post.  If you are open to subjecting your son to this, you should *be able to watch it being done*.

----------


## Dr.3D

> For all of your heartfelt positions on circumcision I believe a liberty activist should fight for the childs parents to be free to choose whether or not their son is circumcised.


I'm more for fighting for the right of the child to decide that when he is old enough to make that decision.  The child's parents shouldn't be free to make that choice any more than they should be free to decide to have his hand amputated just because they think a child with no hands would look better.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm more for fighting for the right of the child to decide that when he is old enough to make that decision.  The child's parents shouldn't be free to make that choice any more than they should be free to decide to have his hand amputated just because they think a child with no hands would look better.


I disagree, If the state is granted the authority to prohibit elective surgery against a parents wishes then how do you envision them twisting and perverting that authority?

I'm all for educating parents, I worked every ward in the hospital when I was in the navy peds included so yup I have 1st hand knowledge of what's involved in a circumcision...It would be wise to educate parents but I believe very unwise to empower the state even more.

----------


## MelissaWV

Be educated about it, don't do it to your children if you don't want to, interfere and educate within your family to prevent it being done to relatives (or friends if you have that open a relationship with them), and stop worrying about everyone else's penes?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Answer me this, then: *why do you care?*  What effect does it have on you?


Because I care about _everyone's_ rights.  Directly, it has no effect on me.  Clitoridectomy has no effect on you, but I think you would agree that it should be illegal.  Why would _you_ care?

----------


## AFPVet

I'm circumcised and glad

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, and I pointed out to you earlier that it's the second definition that applies to people. Just like it says, right in there. If you're going to (wrongly) apply the first definition to people, then by definition you mutilate yourself if you have a mole removed.
> 
> Taking a "gentler tack" is irrelevant. When one is speaking about an idea, they use the most specific word to describe that idea, not the most general, unless they have some ulterior motive like you OBVIOUSLY do. I don't say I own a couple of mammals, I say I own a couple of cats. I don't say my dick was mutilated, which could mean any number of heinous dick injuries, I say it was circumcised. *Quit pretending you have no issues with adult circumcision while simultaneously twisting the language and insisting people think of themselves as mutilated, you primate.* Of course, by your own logic, you should have no issues with me calling you a primate, right? You're a primate by definition! I couldn't possibly have some ulterior motive in calling you that instead of a person, right? Right.


1) My problem is with _involuntary_ circumcision.  Grown ups can cut themselves up any which-way they want.  2) I didn't twist the language.  Words mean what they mean.  I provided a dictionary entry to prove it, which you can verify in any dictionary you choose.  FYI-humans aren't primates.  To call them such would simply be factually incorrect.  You could call humans **** sapiens, hominids, and a number of other things, though.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I disagree, If the state is granted the authority to prohibit elective surgery against a parents wishes then how do you envision them twisting and perverting that authority?
> 
> I'm all for educating parents, I worked every ward in the hospital when I was in the navy peds included so yup I have 1st hand knowledge of what's involved in a circumcision...*It would be wise to educate parents but I believe very unwise to empower the state even more*.


Shall FGM laws be repealed then?  Such procedures are justified by religious reasons (and some amount of quackery), same as circ.

----------


## tod evans

> Shall FGM laws be repealed then?  Such procedures are justified by religious reasons (and some amount of quackery), same as circ.


Wasn't aware of FGM laws on the books......We certainly don't need more.... 

But if FGM laws restrict a parents authority on elective surgery then yes I'm for repealing them.

You'll be hard pressed to get me to argue against repealing any law passed in the last 5-6 decades....

----------


## Dr.3D

> I disagree, If the state is granted the authority to prohibit elective surgery against a parents wishes then how do you envision them twisting and perverting that authority?
> 
> I'm all for educating parents, I worked every ward in the hospital when I was in the navy peds included so yup I have 1st hand knowledge of what's involved in a circumcision...It would be wise to educate parents but I believe very unwise to empower the state even more.


I didn't say I wanted the state to make some law prohibiting it.   From a liberty standpoint, I stand with the child having the right to make that decision, not the parent.  It's about educating people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Wasn't aware of FGM laws on the books......We certainly don't need more.... 
> 
> But if FGM laws restrict a parents authority on elective surgery then yes I'm for repealing them.
> 
> You'll be hard pressed to get me to argue against repealing any law passed in the last 5-6 decades....


Perhaps you can answer these questions which no one else has been able to-what other body parts are okay for a parent to amputate from their childrens' bodies?  Is there a limit?  If so, why?

----------


## TheGrinch

Hey all you human rights activists against circumcision. How many of you know that circumcisions are being done in Africa as an effective means to reduce the spread of disease. 

Plus I don't understand why people think is something that should be anything other than a matter of that family's decision. My circumcision has to be the least consequential thing to happen to me in life, so thanks, but no thanks, I don't need you to save me in your crusade over something that's not any of your business, nor has any effect on you. Take it up with your parents if you don't like their decision they made when you were too young to make one.

But if you must know, sex is still delightful and I like the combat-helmet look over the ant-eater. It's all whatever your experience is, so you can sleep easier now without shedding a tear for me.

----------


## tod evans

> Perhaps you can answer these questions which no one else has been able to-what other body parts are okay for a parent to amputate from their childrens' bodies?  Is there a limit?  If so, why?


I can't answer that, however I am very comfortable saying that it isn't an issue for the state to be involved in.

There have been laws on the books well over 60 years that provide legal consequence for mutilation and disfigurement, might I suggest that surgeries that deviate from the social norm in any given geographical area be tried under those statutes instead of trying to institute new ones?

Personally I don't consider circumcision disfigurement, others do and there are methods in place without new laws to address this issue on a case by case basis. Same with FGM, if the parents want to push the issue and the community wants to push back there are ways to prevent the surgery without new laws. 

And honestly if some community decided it was the best thing going to raise a generation with no ears and the parents agreed to it then let them try it. 

We're not supposed to be a nation of conformists and I really don't see folks lopping off ears or pealing clitorises like skin from an apple....Don't you think if circumcision was a big deal to those who have been circumcised that maybe there'd be a batch of circumcised men raising hell instead of those who are uncircumcised?

----------


## Invi

> We're not supposed to be a nation of conformists and I really don't see folks lopping off ears or pealing clitorises like skin from an apple....Don't you think if circumcision was a big deal to those who have been circumcised that maybe there'd be a batch of circumcised men raising hell instead of those who are uncircumcised?



There are? A good chunk of the "intactivist" movement are circ'd men who are unhappy with it and see it as a violation of rights.

----------


## tod evans

> There are? A good chunk of the "intactivist" movement are circ'd men who are unhappy with it and see it as a violation of rights.


Then they should by all means take their grievances before the medical board and even the courts _in their communities_..

Looking to enact new federal legislation goes against everything _I_ believe in...

Heck they can band together and teach their views to other communities too, just keep the damn feds out of it, they $#@!-up everything they touch.

----------


## Invi

> Then they should by all means take their grievances before the medical board and even the courts _in their communities_..
> 
> Looking to enact new federal legislation goes against everything _I_ believe in...
> 
> Heck they can band together and teach their views to other communities too, just keep the damn feds out of it, they $#@!-up everything they touch.


I agree about not enacting federal legislation. That is not one of the powers given to the federal government in the constitution. I am somewhat more open to the idea of local legislation, though. While I tend to believe less laws are better, I don't see the logic in banning all female genital cutting of minors, regardless of the reason, and at the same time allowing it for males. 

San Francisco had a proposed ban on circumcision.. until a Judge tossed the idea, saying under CA law, only the state can regulate medical procedures.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> For babies about half are now cut, half are left intact.


Right, but for adult males, circumcision is the norm.  




> It affects the chances for optimal healing.  Infection risk can lead to additional tissue loss, and aggressive cleaning can hurt the chances for minimal scarring.


Ok, but I'm sure every baby goes through the same situation, and circumcised men still seem to live fulfilling lives regardless.  




> So if I strapped you down today and sliced away a part of your body that was covered with 15 square inches would that be an amputation?   Call it what you want but that's what was done.


No, it would not be amputation.  Cut off a finger, a toe, a leg, an arm, the whole penis; that's amputation.  Circumcision is not.  I don't  care what you call it, but don't call it amputation.  You are severely twisting the definitions, and it's really uncalled for to insult circumcised men like that.  I don't care if you tell me that you think circumcision is bad for me, but when you intentionally use misleading and inflammatory language for your little pet cause, then you're just being a dick (pun unavoidable).




> The evidence is primarily that intact men say the foreskin is the best part.  There is also quantifiable data about how sensitive the surviving parts are.  To say one can still ejaculate is to set the bar quite low.  I deserve the full symphony of sensation.  Blind me in one eye and I could still read Harry Potter, but I won't be able to enjoy the films in 3D.


Define "best part".  There is also evidence that adults who were circumcised enjoyed sex about the same or even slightly more.  At the most, it's debatable at this point and highly ambiguous.  To play it up like some kind of tragedy is really overstating the issue.  Seriously, the fact that there are circumcised men arguing against you on this should really prove that point.  




> Ask an intact man how prominently his foreskin figures into intimacy.


He wouldn't know because he has nothing to compare it to.




> Your partner can't roll the skin forward of the glans, bunch it up, and nibble on it with lips.  S/he also can't massage your glans frictionlessly with your skin tube.   There are LOTS of options which someone else decided for you that you would never get to try.


Yeah, but is the sensation really that different? It seems so petty.  Many uncircumcised men can't do that anyway.  Men naturally have a widely varied amount of foreskin.  




> You could use non-surgical foreskin restoration techniques to grow back some slack and undo a lot of the damage.


How does that undo the damage?




> Why protest?  Why defend the rights of girls to be free of forced genital cutting?  Because I care about human rights.  While one is captive none are free to paraphrase FDR and Ghandi.


That only applies to state rules.  The state isn't going to force anyone one way or the other.  Besides, FDR and Ghandi aren't necessarily the pinnacle of liberty.  




> False.  For every single thing in life and in medicine proxy consent for irreversible interventions is considered unethical unless waiting for the patient's own rational informed consent would lead to harm and non-destructive options are exhausted.  The singular exception is the infant male foreskin, but it's only by custom, not for any rational reason.   The AAP for example affirms the bit about proxy consent in one of its policy statements, then completely forgets it said that when it comes to their male circumcision policy.  The fact that none of the people on the policy panel had a foreskin might have something to do with it.


What I meant was that you have complete control over whether your son is circumcised or not.  Beyond that, I don't see why you care so much if someone else's child has a different sexual experience from you.  If I am a circumcised male who feels bad about it, it doesn't necessarily give me any joy to know that others will not be circumcised.  Sexual practices are a very private matter, and it has absolutely no effect on me whether or not someone else is circumcised, unless I am gay (which I am not).  




> I don't see laying down and submitting to some bully who would alter your genitals as manly either.


No infant is manly at that age.  Whether to be submissive or dominant isn't necessarily an option for them.  So I'm not exactly "laying down and submitting" if I was only 8 days old at the time.  I can still be just as manly as an adult despite all that, and I don't have to seek revenge to be manly.  Revenge is a very useless and futile form of violence, and it's kind of hypocritical for a liberty-minded individual to support something like that.  Besides, you are intentionally inflating the issue by suggesting that someone would be justified for killing doctors because they were circumcised.  It's just not that big of a deal and it's very dishonest to suggest that that would be justified.  It's not manly to go on a rampage over something you have no control over.  




> Maybe watch the medical video "Functions of the Foreskin" now available on YouTube.  Infant circumcision haphazardly removes sexually valuable parts and the only person with the standing to say those parts have no value is the owner of the parts.  The AAP declared in 2011 that many presently-illegal forms of female genital cutting are far less invasive than male circumcision.


That doesn't really tell me anything.  Just because it's being compared to something something that's taboo, that doesn't really help me judge how circumcision compares to non-circumcision.  




> Well from time to time oppressed groups take back the hurtful language from their oppressors, to great social effect.   Of course there are always bullies who resist and persist with the insults, but then it becomes a great way to spot the unsympathetic and they tend to get marginalized.


Protesing the use of words is a very common tactic, regardless of whether the movement is legitimate or not.  Nobody is being "oppressed" here anyway.   There is no government involvement.  To act like this is an "us vs. them" issue is, again, greatly exaggerating the problem and inflating the issue.  Anyway, the truth is that words are decided according to social norms, and circumcision is pretty normal now.




> A Liberty activist should fall on the side of the male infant's right to have his genitals protected like every other of his body parts and like all the parts of everyone else's body are protected.


I am a liberty activist, and I am circumcised, yet I don't see what the big deal is.  Why are you going on a proxy crusade for me?  Why do you care so much?  Every circumcised male has all the function of an uncircumcised male, they can still feel sex, and they can still like it.  There are no draconian laws enforcing circumcision, so it really doesn't affect you at all whether someone else's child experiences sex differently than you do.  It's a really petty thing to protest because it's so inconsequential and there are a hundred things that take priority over something like circumcision.  Besides, it's not like I can even tell if I'm missing something, so what's it to you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Be educated about it, don't do it to your children if you don't want to, interfere and educate within your family to prevent it being done to relatives (or friends if you have that open a relationship with them), and stop worrying about everyone else's penes?


Exactly.  It's not your penis.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because I care about _everyone's_ rights.  Directly, it has no effect on me.  Clitoridectomy has no effect on you, but I think you would agree that it should be illegal.  Why would _you_ care?


I don't know what a clitoridectomy is.  The truth is, it's not your penis, there is no state authority involved in this parental decision, and it has no effect on you in any way whatsoever.  What's more, it's such an inconsequential thing that it's hardly worth the effort you put into it while inflating the issue and treating circumcised men like they're freaks just because you have to win this debate.  

You are arguing in the positive for government intervention, and I am arguing in the negative.  That's why I care.  I'm not the one going on a crusade here.  I'm just asking you why you have to lie and distort the issue when it has no effect on you just so some kid you don't know has the same sexual experience as you (if it even is any different).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

I think people put sex on such a high pedestal these days that everyone has to be the hero.  It's really quite pathetic that anti-circumcision people have to display their sexuality by saying doctors who perform it should be killed.  In reality, it's a very minor procedure that really doesn't have that many consequences, but people here have to distort the issue just to express how macho they are.  They don't really care about what circumcised men think about what happened to them.  It's a self-serving thing that helps someone feel like a macho man (the example of the cowboy riding off with his six-shooter to avenge his circumcision was a really good example of how pathetic these people are and how addicted they are to the idea that altering sex is a no-no, on par with cutting off an arm or other essential body part).  I'm not trying to avenge anyone or go on a crusade for someone else's future babies.  I'm just wondering why anti-circumcisers have to be such dicks about something so stupid that has no effect on their lives whatsoever.  I think it's just so they can feed their superiority complex by trying to win the day for 'real' sex.

----------


## TheGrinch

In yet another thread I will suggest heavenlyboy utilize the search engine function of the internet. There are pros and cons but medical benefits to circumcision, and as has been mentioned, it's not typically the ones who are circumcized that have any sort of issue with it.

Thus it is the family's choice. I don't buy this whole kid's rights that trumps parent's rights to be parents on a simple personal preference matter like this. It's really none of your business, and higlhy ironic that some of you care about it far more than the circumsized do.

----------


## Acala

Men who have had their penis mutilated should be put into camps.  [looks down]  Oh, wait . . .

----------


## Origanalist

> Men who have had their penis mutilated should be put into camps.  [looks down]  Oh, wait . . .

----------


## amy31416

> It's really quite pathetic that anti-circumcision people have to display their sexuality by saying doctors who perform it should be killed.


Quote the anti-circumcision person who claimed that doctors should be killed, or quit being a twit.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Quote the anti-circumcision person who claimed that doctors should be killed, or quit being a *twit*.


I totally read that wrong, given the nature of the thread

----------


## SewrRatt

> 1) My problem is with _involuntary_ circumcision.  Grown ups can cut themselves up any which-way they want.  2) I didn't twist the language.  Words mean what they mean.  I provided a dictionary entry to prove it, which you can verify in any dictionary you choose.  FYI-humans aren't primates.  To call them such would simply be factually incorrect.  You could call humans **** sapiens, hominids, and a number of other things, though.





> pri·mate
>    [prahy-meyt or, especially for 1, prahy-mit] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> Ecclesiastical . an archbishop or bishop ranking first among the bishops of a province or country.
> 2.
> any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (*humans*, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability.
> 3.
> Archaic . a chief or leader.


And at your own link at wikipedia, simply follow the tree up all the way from order Primates and you will find humans. 

I think we can all see from this how much we should trust your dictionary skills. Please stop claiming to have proven something when I have proven you wrong about it. For the third time, the definition of mutilated as applies to people is to be deprived of a limb or other essential part. You continue to flaunt your ulterior motives by insisting on using that word. Latching onto the first definition given even when the second says it applies to people is no more intellectually honest than protesting that you're not a primate because you're not a bishop.

----------


## youngbuck

WTF, why on earth did this thread go to 14 pages?  I think it's absurd that ppl make such a big deal about circumcision.  There are much more important things to worry about.  There are good arguments on both side of the debate.  In the end, it doesn't substantially alter the bigger picture of freedom or our lives.  

I have absolutely no qualms with being circumcised, and most women prefer circumcised men.  Who gives a rat's ass either way, anyway.  I vote for dropping it.  Leave it up to the parents.  Thread vote goes to 1-star.

----------


## Origanalist

> WTF, why on earth did this thread go to 14 pages?  I think it's absurd that ppl make such a big deal about circumcision.  There are much more important things to worry about.  There are good arguments on both side of the debate.  In the end, it doesn't substantially alter the bigger picture of freedom or our lives.  
> 
> I have absolutely no qualms with being circumcised, and most women prefer circumcised men.  Who gives a rat's ass either way, anyway.  I vote for dropping it.  Leave it up to the parents.  Thread vote goes to 1-star.


Nothing is more important than peni.

No other issue compares in size.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nothing is more important than peni.
> 
> No other issue compares in size.


...or urgency.  mmmMMMMmmhhhmm....

----------


## Origanalist

> ...or urgency.  mmmMMMMmmhhhmm....


Well now!!!

----------


## tod evans

> ...or urgency.  mmmMMMMmmhhhmm....


Don't be "hummin'" around threads about dick...

Well I suppose you can, most here are good with that.

----------


## jj-

> Quote the anti-circumcision person who claimed that doctors should be killed, or quit being a twit.


bump

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

This topic needed 14 pages of discussion? 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Moving-Forward

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ne-Bomb-Nov-13 (this thread has only 2 pages and this has 14...ffs)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Paul-evolution

Seriously people...

----------


## amy31416

We are libertarians and we care about penis even more than left-wing liberal feminist dykes care about vagina. 

This is our version of the Penis Monologues.

----------


## jj-

> We are libertarians and we care about penis even more than left-wing liberal feminist dykes care about vagina. 
> 
> This is our version of the Penis Monologues.


No, it's just you. No one cares about Penis more than amypi.

----------


## amy31416

> No, it's just you. No one cares about Penis more than amypi.


Oh. I will go and contemplate what this means.

----------


## Danke

> No, it's just you. No one cares about Penis more than amypi.

----------


## jj-

..

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This topic needed 14 pages of discussion? 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Moving-Forward
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ne-Bomb-Nov-13 (this thread has only 2 pages and this has 14...ffs)
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Paul-evolution
> 
> Seriously people...


I must say I feel like I accomplished something

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Saw this on FB and just HAD to share

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We are libertarians and we care about penis even more than left-wing liberal feminist dykes care about vagina. 
> 
> This is our version of the Penis Monologues.


I care about everyone's genital integrity equally-even yours.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

SCARDICKS UNITE!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> SCARDICKS UNITE!


unite for what purpose?

----------


## James Madison

> Nothing is more important than peni.
> 
> No other issue compares in size.


Except, well.......size.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> unite for what purpose?


We must have some sort of super power if we're in a big enough group.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Except, well.......size.


I bet it's a pain in the ass being over 10 inches.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I bet it's a pain in the ass being over 10 inches.


There are a variety of jokes that present themselves.

----------


## Vanilluxe

Circumcised or not, we should be respectful and tolerant of everyone's differences; especially being in a Ron Paul forum.  We are all living creatures after all.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There are a variety of jokes that present themselves.


Indeed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Circumcised or not, we should be respectful and tolerant of everyone's differences; especially being in a Ron Paul forum.  We are all living creatures after all.


Agreed.  I'm pretty sure I'm good about being tolerant of folks' differences.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We must have some sort of super power if we're in a big enough group.


 What makes you think so?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> What makes you think so?


We must've sacrificed our foreskin for something. Lol.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> We must've sacrificed our foreskin for something. Lol.


Well, if it makes you feel better, circumcisions have been used for skin grafts for burn victims.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Well, if it makes you feel better, circumcisions have been used for skin grafts for burn victims.


I think it's probably a good thing. I don't think the burn victims care, if they even know it's foreskin.

Seems like it would take alot of foreskins though...

----------


## Acala

> We are all living creatures after all.


Scardicks only THINK they are living.

----------


## Origanalist

> I think it's probably a good thing. I don't think the burn victims care, if they even know it's foreskin.
> 
> Seems like it would take alot of foreskins though...


*$#@!* takes on a whole new meaning.

I was in a wreck when I was 17 and went through the windshield with my face. The doctors wanted to take skin from my anus to repair my lips because it's the only compatable skin. I declined. 

No way in hell was I going to be called *butt lips* for the rest of my life.

----------


## Acala

> I don't think the burn victims care, if they even know it's foreskin.


"Man, my burn scar looks ugly but it sure feels good when I rub it!"

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I care about everyone's genital integrity equally-even yours.


That's apparently the same creepy genital fixation that many people here have.

----------


## osan

> After not even realizing that this debate was on the internet for 20 years, I have done a little research on circumcision and I have decided there is not much difference between the two.  That being said, whether or not this is true, the negative language needs to stop.  Everytime I hear people talk about their anecdotes and call circumcised men "mutilated" and absolutely insist on referring to uncircumcised men as "intact, natural, normal", it can mess with a guy's mind.


Since we're all on the same side here, I feel it is my duty to point out that you sound like a flaming, candy-ass progressive here.  D00d, snap out of it.  This sentence is dripping with PC-fagness from every square inch.  People hold whatever opinions they choose.  You are free to challenge them, but are you free to demand they stop expressing those opinions? 

As far as I am concerned, such men are indeed mutilated.  If your parents had cut off one of your pinkies in some twisted religious ceremony, would you not consider that as mutilation?  Circumcision isn't like clipping one's finger nails or getting a haircut.

That said, such men should not feel ashamed or anything like that - after all, they were given no say in the matter.

Put it this way, if someone approached an infant son of mine with the intention to violate him in such a way, that person would be given exactly one warning to be disregarded at his own mortal peril.




> Using such harsh language is a form of judgment to me.


So?  Judgment is the individual's prerogative.  PASSING judgment, which is to say imposing it... another question entirely.  The forming of opinions necessitates judgment.  We could barely get through an hour of living without judging, much less a lifetime, so judgment is not the issue.  The displeasure a given judgment imparts is what you are really driving toward and that is one of those "too bad, so sad" deals.  You are required to tolerate the opinions of others regardless of how bitterly they may offend your sensibilities.  So am I, and so are all people.  It is the disrespect engendered in this brand of intolerance that has lead humanity to current and every so $#@!ty pass.




> It's hurtful, unnecessary, and not least of all, unfounded as of yet.


Jesus... are you serious?  I have to attribute this to a momentary lapse of reason on your part, for which you are readily forgiven.  We all have them.

One man cannot possibly hurt another by the opinions he holds and expresses.  It is the other party who hurts himself by handing his emotional autonomy over to another, and that is an act of positive, willful choice.  For example, there is NOTHING you could possibly utter that would hurt me.  Call me an $#@!, *****, child molester... claim my dick is little, that I have no skill, that I am Obama's secret lover and bearer of his love-children...  Say what you will about me if it makes you feel better about things.  I don't care.  I am immune to your words because I CHOOSE to be.  No man holds the least power over me that I do not give to him directly.  So long as I withhold that power, others have nothing on me.




> Saying we can't perform and that we are missing something may or may not be true.  It certainly hasn't stopped any men from trying.  The language, however, is distracting and a schtick that one uses to win an argument at the expense of a man's self-esteem and masculinity.


You need to rethink this position with some care greater than what you have apparently given thus far.




> It's really damaging to hear all these things about circumcised men, as if they were completely castrated, when 80% of men in the 80s (including me) were circumcised.  It's not cool to call someone's penis "mutilated" and implying we're not normal because we have less foreskin than some people.


Such people, if we are to believe in this sort of damage, inflict the injury upon themselves solely.  The only way you can damage me directly and against my will, for example, would be to beat me with an iron bar.   THAT is damage I may not be able to avoid.  Other such direct damages are eminently avoidable by simply refusing to allow it.  Indirect damage as the result of action taken by third parties in response to someone's words against you - that is a different kettle of fish.  For example, you spread the rumor that I $#@! little boys and a potential employer decides not to hire me because he doesn't want to risk "trouble".  In that case, someone's libelous remarks caused me material loss and for that I have legal remedies.

----------


## Acala

> If your parents had cut off one of your pinkies in some twisted religious ceremony, would you not consider that as mutilation?


Pinkies are not necessary and it is easier to keep your hands clean with the pinky removed.  And Brunobulax, blessed be his name, DEMANDS it of his servants.  So back off.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's apparently the same creepy genital fixation that many people here have.


I don't have a genital fixation.  The genital mutilators do.  It's just that taking a firm stand against genital mutilation makes it _seem_ like a fixation.  Same as any other contentious issue.  Just like you might think RP has a "creepy fixation" on Ben Bernanke and the FED if you don't consider the context.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I don't have a genital fixation.  The genital mutilators do.  It's just that taking a firm stand against genital mutilation makes it _seem_ like a fixation.  Same as any other contentious issue.  Just like you might think RP has a "creepy fixation" on Ben Bernanke and the FED if you don't consider the context.


But you're fixating on someone else's genitals. That's what's bizarre.

There are actually legitimate medical reasons both for and against circumcision (preventing the spread of disease for one), so I don't really care what you think about my parents choice to circumcise me when I was at an age that I wouldn't even remember it, rather than making me have to choose as an adult, when even pro-circumcision folks wouldn't want to have it done.

Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of parents to be parents for their children who are not old enough to make rational decisions for themselves.

It ain't none of your business what medical procedures my family does or doesn't do... Or would you like to go on a crusade about how my mom's C-section robbed me of a natural birth?

----------


## osan

> I don't have a genital fixation.


Well I _do_ and am very grateful to my parents for not having taken the chainsaw to parts of which I am eminently fond and imposing upon me one of those OUCH moments to which nobody in his right skull would agree.




> It's just that taking a firm stand against genital mutilation makes it _seem_ like a fixation.


Agreed.  Look, the guys who've had this travesty imposed upon them are trying to make themselves feel better by playing it down.  This is very understandable because I am not sure I would not have chased my folks down the block with a meat ax once I was old enough, had they done it to me.

----------


## Origanalist

> Well I _do_ and am very grateful to my parents for not having taken the chainsaw to parts of which I am eminently fond and imposing upon me one of those OUCH moments to which nobody in his right skull would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Look, the guys who've had this travesty imposed upon them are trying to make themselves feel better by playing it down.  This is very understandable because I am not sure I would not have chased my folks down the block with a meat ax once I was old enough, had they done it to me.


Wow, you really got a hard on over this. Somehow I get the feeling I should be offended but I just find it comical.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## TheGrinch

> Well I _do_ and am very grateful to my parents for not having *taken the chainsaw* to parts of which I am eminently fond and imposing upon me one of those OUCH moments to which nobody in his right skull would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Look, the guys who've had this* travesty* imposed upon them are trying to make themselves feel better by playing it down.  This is very understandable because I am not sure I would not have chased my folks down the block with a meat ax once I was old enough, had they done it to me.


This is so filled with ridiculous hyperbole.

You know what I'm grateful for, having a fully functional penis that doesn't carry disease in it's turtle-neck. Stop acting like this is some travesty. It's a simple medical procedure and freedom of choice. You like the ant-eater, I like the helmet. 

But thanks anyway for you condolences over some "ouch" moment that I don't remember and has zero affect on my daily life (aside from sex feeling better ) Your sympathy and outrage is not required, but thanks anyway...

Seriuosly a bizarre thing to be concerned about.

----------


## osan

> But you're fixating on someone else's genitals. That's what's bizarre.


Oh BULL$#@!.  Come on d00d, if you're going to use fallacious reasoning through innuendo, at least show some art and an adroit hand.

His focus has been on the objection to the mutilating practice of circumcision that is imposed upon infants without giving them a say in the matter.  I doubt he is fixated on anyone's winkie... unless he is gay and that is none of my business.




> There are actually legitimate medical reasons both for and against circumcision (preventing the spread of disease for one)


That nonsense has been wholly demolished as the bull$#@! that it is a long time ago.  It is pure lies.




> so I don't really care what you think about my parents choice to circumcise me when I was at an age that I wouldn't even remember it, rather than making me have to choose as an adult, when even pro-circumcision folks wouldn't want to have it done.


THAT'S THE SPIRIT!  You shouldn't care.  If you are good with it, that is great.  If not, I have a 5# butcher ax I can sell you cheap. 




> Freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of parents to be parents for their children who are not old enough to make rational decisions for themselves.


Yes, but this does present a gray area of sorts.  The answer depends upon the premises one accepts as true and of the highest priority.  I am not of a mind to make it illegal, but I do question the sanity and smarts of parents who do this to their children.




> It ain't none of your business what medical procedures my family does or doesn't do... Or would you like to go on a crusade about how my mom's C-section robbed me of a natural birth?


Another monumental logic FAIL, conflating a wholly extraneous procedure with one that is almost certainly necessary to save the life of mother and/or child.

FAIL FAIL FAIL.  Jesus.... for this you wear the paper bag of shame until tomorrow.  Now go and sin no more!

Damned kids.... sheesh.

And lighten up for Jesus' sake - people are allowed their opinions, no matter how stupidly disagreeable you might find them.

----------


## TheGrinch

Funny I question the sanity and smarts of someone who makes a crusade over simple circumcisions of others that in no way affects the functionality of the body part in question. 

Baby's rights? Give me a break. By virtue of not only being able to decide, let alone survive for yourself, parents make decisions on behalf of their kids... And when that decision is in no way consequential to that person's daily life, forgive me for thinking your concern over my penis' safety is not only misguided, but completely inconsequential.

It's akin to me saying that you're mutilating yourself when you clip your fingernails. Who the hell cares?

----------


## Origanalist

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xl1...nude-beach_fun

----------


## Occam's Banana

> *$#@!* takes on a whole new meaning.


And this whole thead gives new meaning to the word *flapdoodle*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Funny I question the sanity and smarts of someone who makes a crusade over simple circumcisions of others that in no way affects the functionality of the body part in question. 
> 
> Baby's rights? Give me a break. By virtue of not only being able to decide, let alone survive for yourself, parents make decisions on behalf of their kids... And when that decision is in no way consequential to that person's daily life, forgive me for thinking your concern over my penis' safety is not only misguided, but completely inconsequential.
> *
> It's akin to me saying that you're mutilating yourself when you clip your fingernails. Who the hell cares?*


You seriously don't know the difference between a fully functioning organ (which doesn't grow back) and a fingernail(which grows back)?  GTFO and take an anatomy class.  Those of us who believe in individual rights care.

----------


## Origanalist

This is turning into a real pissing contest.

----------


## TheGrinch

> You seriously don't know the difference between a fully functioning organ (which doesn't grow back) and a fingernail(which grows back)?  GTFO and take an anatomy class.  Those of us who believe in individual rights care.


Ponit being that neither is consequential to my life to remove. 

What about those pinky toenails that dont grow back? Should you or I be concerned with the millions who suffer from that mutilatiion?

I think I'll focus on rights that actually affect our daily lives, rather than some inconsequential parental choice.

----------


## Origanalist

> And this whole thead gives new meaning to the word *flapdoodle*.


Why are people making such a big flap out of this?

----------


## osan

> This is so filled with ridiculous hyperbole.


Exactly.  It's called sarcasm and humor.  Buy a clue.

Jesus...

----------


## Dr.3D

> I like the combat-helmet look over the ant-eater.


If you ever saw a penis with the foreskin fully retracted, you would not be able to tell the difference between one that didn't have a foreskin, other than the line where the scar would be is missing.   In other words, the combat-helmet look is there on both, just one has a convertible covering and the other doesn't.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Scardicks only THINK they are living.


Living is for the weak. Real men only pretend to live.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> *$#@!* takes on a whole new meaning.
> 
> I was in a wreck when I was 17 and went through the windshield with my face. The doctors wanted to take skin from my anus to repair my lips because it's the only compatable skin. I declined. 
> 
> No way in hell was I going to be called *butt lips* for the rest of my life.


How did your lips turn out?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Well I _do_ and am very grateful to my parents for not having taken the chainsaw to parts of which I am eminently fond and imposing upon me one of those OUCH moments to which nobody in his right skull would agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Look, the guys who've had this travesty imposed upon them are trying to make themselves feel better by playing it down.  This is very understandable because I am not sure I would not have chased my folks down the block with a meat ax once I was old enough, had they done it to me.


Oh now the truth comes out. You're just a Scardick hater!

----------

