Register
three pillows bisexual porn
Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 370
  1. #1
    Banned

    Gender
    Couple - M/F
    Location

    Other
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    807

    The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    SF to vote on male circumcision in November

    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/0...iref=allsearch

    Yea!!! An important step has been taken. This is an important milestone even if we lose. It will not be an easy battle. The other side will fight like the pro slavery against the abolitionists 170 years ago in America. Can you imagine how most popular feelings in the south were if you announced anti slavery epithets in 1840? They will view us and call us "radicals" for not 'going with the flow'.

    Viva La Resistance!
    Last edited by Bluebiyou; May 19, 2011 at 11:37 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Texas - Other Areas
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    678

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    As a cut male, I really can't understand the big deal...

    My cock works fine, it is easier to keep clean and I have never seen any valid medical data showing that male circumcision is harmful.

    Personally I do not waste my time on MALE circumcision, I DO think that outlawing FEMALE circumcision is a MUCH more worthy fight since the clitoris and hence the primary means to orgasm is removed.

    So I guess the Jewish folks in SF will have to cross the bridge... I wonder if they plan to have cock cops to check incoming...

    There are so many more important things to fight about, outlawing male circumcision seems insignificant in light of all the prejudicial things us dis-oriented folks have to deal with.

    Just my 2 cents...

    Liz

  3. #3
    Unofficial Community Leader
    Gender
    Female
    Location

    South Carolina
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,936

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Here we go again....Sorry to tell you this, Liz, but according to these activists, you are mutilated and I am a molester for having my sons circumcised. This is a hot issue on this site and it seems to bring out the very worst in some people. I'm just sitting back waiting for the proverbial SHIT to hit the fan!

    Sigh.....like I said....here we go again!
    Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: "What! You too? I thought I was the only one."

    C. S. Lewis

  4. #4
    Senior Member

    Gender
    Female
    Location

    Scotland
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    558

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    I have always been in two minds about male circumcision. On the one hand I do see the likes of Fran's argument that until such times as a child is old enough to be able to make up his own mind based on information available to him, it can be argued that to remove the foreskin is an assault on a helpless child. It has taken from him the the right to choose, and, arguably deprives him of much additional sexual pleasure he will now never know.

    I also see from the other point of view the concern parents have over the sexual health and hygeine of their child and the strong religious motivations and traditions which involve male circumcision. The argument that what he doesn't remember he will never miss is sound also and so I can see Lizard's point of view. Another issue is that I am told that circumcision is a more serious operation for an adult male than for a baby boy. Something which may create mental obstacles in the way of many men choosing circumcision or otherwise based on the principle of informed consent.

    From a strictly female point of view, living in a country where most men are uncircumcised it is what I have been most accustomed to, but have had sufficient experience of circumcised men to know I prefer the other kind. That is not to say I have not enjoyed sex with circumcised men it is merely to say that there are options available to a woman that a man without a foreskin cannot provide. Women of America for instance will probably have quite the opposite experience and preference to those in the UK and Western Europe. So from a purely sexual point of view it is a subjective judgement we will all have made or have to make.

    It is an issue which pours forth very strong emotions, and should I ever have a child, shall I have him circumcised? No I will not. Do I think it should be banned unless informed consent is given by the person upon whom the procedure is carried out? Instinctively I say yes, but there are far more serious issues in our world than something which divides two continents. Clitorectomy being one. Poverty, discrimination and prejudice being just a few others. I would argue for the principle of informed consent of the individual concerned except in cases of medical need, but I don't think I would go to the wall for it.

  5. #5
    Member

    Gender
    Female
    Location

    Virginia
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    39

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    It was a moot point for us. My son was born with a serious version of hypospadias. The surgeon used his foreskin to do the penile reconstruction. I think the number of boys born with hypospadias is about 1% in the US (and the numbers are apparently on the rise).

    We talked about it at the time, (two decades ago), before we knew about the hypospadias, and I remember that all the information we could find indicated that it was healthier to circumcise. The doctors all recommended it. We never saw anything to indicate otherwise. Now of course, with the growth of the internet, you can find both sides of the discussion.

    If I were having a boy now, I don't think I would do it. Though in the US, it would make him a minority and a potential target for bullying in middle and high school.

  6. #6
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Couple - M/M
    Location
    California - Bay Area
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    356

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

    Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

    Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

    Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

    Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

    It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

    The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

    Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

    Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

    The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

    Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

    Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

    Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

    the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

    Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

    It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

    But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

    some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

    People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

    If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

    In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

    Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


    It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

    The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

    These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

    The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

    Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

    On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

    The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

    The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


    The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

    The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.

    Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.

    The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.

    in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

    forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

    In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

    I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

    I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

    Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


    We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. Weíre still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

    Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

    - It has never been shown to be necessary
    - The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
    - Itís permanent, barring restoration attempts.
    - Itís a very unpleasant procedure.
    - The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

    There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

    If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

    Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

    Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

    For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

    You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

    117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

    It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.

  7. #7
    Member
    Gender
    Male
    Location

    Ontario - South
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    I am fortunate to have experienced both. I was circumcised when I was 20 yrs old. It was my own decision to have the circumcision. Keep in mind that

    I grew up in Indonesia to a Chinese family. So circumcision to the majority of the populations who are Moslem is something as normal as celebrating sweet seventeenth birthday. It is just a part of life that they have to go through as part of their culture. Indonesian Moslem normally circumcised their boys at around 8 years old.

    My family do not have the circumcision culture, so we never had the need to go through it. Some of my male family did get circumcised for various reasons, majority due to health.

    Personally, I like being circumcised. I find it aesthetically sexy. Also from hygiene point of view, it is a lot better. I used to get a lot of infections due to the foreskin being thick and at times I did not clean it properly.

    Over the years, I have tried to look at the bigger pictures and practicality of things regarding any subject. In regards to circumcision, if we look at the history of the cultures (I consider some religions as culture i.e. Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc) promoting circumcision, I am sure that there was a very good reason back in time of why it was done.

    One reason that I could think of was due to water shortage and the nomadic nature of the culture. The Jews and Moslem were some what nomadic people. Circumcision is a good way to ensure that the males did not get penile infections as the availability of water to clean up may not always be available.

    The same thing could be said about not eating pork as we know if it was not cooked properly, worms could be transferred to human through pork.

    Just my two cents in this matter

    I love cut cock!!!

  8. #8
    Unofficial Community Leader

    Gender
    Male
    Location
    New York - NYC Area
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,003

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.

  9. #9
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Couple - M/M
    Location
    California - Bay Area
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    356

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieknyc View Post
    Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.
    No it is not "racist".

    There are Jews and Moslems who do not practice male or female genital mutilation, yet they are still Jewish and Moslem.

    I dated a Jewish man who had an intact penis with a foreskin since his Jewish mother and Jewish father did not want him to be circumcised at all. He is still Jewish despite not being cut.

    All circumcisions both male and female are pointless genital mutilation.

    Did anyone see the model named Robert on Sean Cody the other week? He had something called a "bridge" that developed after his circumcision as an infant.

    After seeing it I think it should be a crime.

    Here's a picture of a nasty "bridge" on a cut penis.



    I support this ban 100%.
    It is not about removing parental rights, it is about protecting personal rights. The rights of men to make their own choices about their genitals.

    There are MANY decisions we must make for our children. That is part of our responsibility as parents. However, this should NOT be one of them. Routine Infant Circumcision is a medically unnecessary COSMETIC surgery on an individual who is unable to consent. That makes it completely unethical and not a valid parental choice.

    (And I am talking only about routine circ, barring an actual medical need) There is NO reason that this type of procedure cannot be delayed until the age of consent of the individual owning the genitals.

    Up until 1997 in this country, female circ was legal. Now it is not. What is the difference? Why are our daughters protected by law, but not our sons? There should be no difference. Equal rights, equal protection. It has to start somewhere.

    I'm fully in favor of freedom of religion, but your religious freedom does not give you the right to amputate or otherwise modify any perfectly normal and healthy part of SOMEONE ELSE'S BODY.

    The child's body is not property of his/her parents or their culture or religion.

    If a religion called for the tattooing or branding of an infant or child, that wouldn't make ok. If a religion called for any other part of the human body, for example an earlobe (you don't really need that, right?...), to be cut off of a baby or child, that wouldn't make it ok. And of course when religion calls for any cutting of the female genitals - no matter how minor - that doesn't make it ok.

    So why then is the penis different than every other body part in this regard? What gives parents the right to cut part of it off and deprive the child of the right to choose for the rest of his life?

    I know infant male genital mutilation ("circumcision") is widely accepted in our culture, but that in and of itself doesn't make it ok, so I urge folks to really think critically about this!

  10. #10
    Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    North West England
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    298

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieknyc View Post
    Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.
    If it is racist, then all laws which prohibit female genital mutilation are racist, and if any such law to prohibit male circumcision is struck down by the courts as being racist, then so should all law which prohibits that of the female.

  11. #11
    Some Kind of Super Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location

    Washington
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,598

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Guys..its not anyone is asking you to do it Right Now. Ow. Thats all Im saying on this. Its too hot of a topic..like Kate said. And I dont really recall of any women Ive personally known having a genital mutulation.
    Going to go curl up by Kate with the endless cookie plate.
    Cat
    I'm tryin' my best to leave a loving foot print on the hearts of the folks who's lives I touch..longly, or briefly..:}
    Minx

    Women and cats will do as they please, so men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Some Kind of Super Member
    Gender
    Male
    Location

    NZ - Other
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,938

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    the proposal is to make it illegal to do pretty much anything to the male penis unless the person is 17 years olf

    they better have a medical exemption in there for medical issues, that protects the doctors in the event of penis / foreskin surgery that needs doing well before the child is 17...... or they could end up with issues like children with a extra tight foreskin that is cutting off full circulation to the penis and will result is a deformed penis, and the parents being told, * sorry, can't operate, it may be a medical issue, but we are not allowed to do anything *

    simple result, is parents will go out of state, for circumcisions and medical penis surgery....

    it is a dangerous game we play, using the personal rights card.... cos its used to push a personal agenda and often not thought out that well.....
    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
    Gilbert K. Chesterton .


    It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
    Gilbert K. Chesterton


    Innocence is a form of insanity and self delusion

  13. #13
    Some Kind of Super Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location

    NZ - Other
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,697

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy View Post
    The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

    Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

    Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

    Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

    Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

    It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

    The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

    Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

    Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

    The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

    Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

    Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

    Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

    the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

    Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

    It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

    But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

    some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

    People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

    If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

    In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

    Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


    It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

    The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

    These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

    The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

    Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

    On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

    The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

    The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


    The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

    The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.

    Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.

    The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.

    in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

    forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

    In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

    I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

    I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

    Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


    We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. Weíre still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

    Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

    - It has never been shown to be necessary
    - The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
    - Itís permanent, barring restoration attempts.
    - Itís a very unpleasant procedure.
    - The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

    There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

    If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

    Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

    Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

    For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

    You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

    117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

    It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.
    Thank you for revealing yourself, Drugstore Cowboy, cause you sure as fuck weren't around when I was Twyla or when Pasa was active. Ignored and I really hope Drew deals with you soon.

    As for Kate's statement, I couldn't agree more.
    Standing hand in hand with my love

    Cara ch' 'm blaidd



  14. #14
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Texas - Dallas/FW
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    328

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    For those who believe male circumcision should be allowed for religious reasons; GET REAL.

    Do you know what the bible, what Orthodox Judaism and most of Islam says about us bisexual and gay men?!

    I guess it also means that you condone female circumcision for religious reasons and the fact that Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and especially Islam put women in a subservient position to that of men.

    If you're arguing for male circumcision because of religion/culture, or freedom of religion then you are for female circumcision as well since there are various religions and cultures worldwide who do this to girls as a part of their religion or culture.

    No one chooses their religion when they are born. Boys are born Jewish through their Jewish mother or they are Moslem because of their Moslem mother or Moslem father, therefore they are Jewish or Moslem, therefore they DO NOT need their foreskins chopped off to become Jewish or Moslem. Also, let them decide if they want to be Jewish or Moslem when they are older.

    Religion is not a sufficient reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Actually there is not sufficient reason.

    If I know anything I know dick. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, POTENTIALLY decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure.

    Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would POTENTIALLY limit that for a child.

    There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that canít be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.

    Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.

    It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.

    Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!

    Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

    When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!

    Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.

    There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.

    I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that this is being done in San Francisco.

    Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.

    I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.

    Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.

    I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.

    It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.

    Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.

    I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.

    The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.

    Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.

    Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.

    Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.

  15. #15
    Member

    Gender
    Female
    Location

    AU - Queensland
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    281

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    my father had to be 'cut' in the war. he said it was the most painful thing he had every endured, as did all the other guys that had to undergo it. but he said it was the best thing - in the long run- and was glad he'd had it done. i don't understand all the reasons behind why as he never talked much about the war, though he was in the intelligence so maybe that had something to do with it and where he was posted. a two second snip as a baby, never to be remembered as an adult, would have been kinder. either way, i think it should be the parent's decision, like breast feeding etc. i'm sooooo fed up with 'experts' coming out with decisions which may be altered again in the future. and i'm soooo fed up with non-experts pointing fingers judging a preference when it ultimately causes no long term damage to the male. female circumcision is a totally different ballgame - there is NO COMPARISON, so don't even try to compare the two. the loss of a clitoris and sexual pleasure is criminal. personally i prefer a cut dick (not because of father - no love lost there) that's just me.

  16. #16
    Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    North West England
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    298

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling View Post
    Thank you for revealing yourself, Drugstore Cowboy, cause you sure as fuck weren't around when I was Twyla or when Pasa was active. Ignored and I really hope Drew deals with you soon.

    As for Kate's statement, I couldn't agree more.
    Drew will deal with him how? By banning him? What has the man said to justify that? That you don't like the message or messenger? So much for the much lauded American ideal of freedom of speech. I don't like the pro-circumcision lobby's stance but the last thing I would do is to try and have its advocates gagged or banned however inflammatory they may be.

  17. #17
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Texas - Dallas/FW
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    328

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by bizel View Post
    my father had to be 'cut' in the war. he said it was the most painful thing he had every endured, as did all the other guys that had to undergo it. but he said it was the best thing - in the long run- and was glad he'd had it done. i don't understand all the reasons behind why as he never talked much about the war, though he was in the intelligence so maybe that had something to do with it and where he was posted. a two second snip as a baby, never to be remembered as an adult, would have been kinder. either way, i think it should be the parent's decision, like breast feeding etc. i'm sooooo fed up with 'experts' coming out with decisions which may be altered again in the future. and i'm soooo fed up with non-experts pointing fingers judging a preference when it ultimately causes no long term damage to the male. female circumcision is a totally different ballgame - there is NO COMPARISON, so don't even try to compare the two. the loss of a clitoris and sexual pleasure is criminal. personally i prefer a cut dick (not because of father - no love lost there) that's just me.
    Proving that women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

    When was the last time they had an actual penis? Where's your medical degree?

    Since you claim that male genital mutilation is no big deal at all then it should not be a big deal if you get your clitoral hood removed.

    Yes you can compare FGM or female genital mutilation with MGM or male genital mutilation.

    I don't believe in circumcision at all for anyone.

    Did you even read my post about how I'd been with lots of cut men who had major issues because of circumcision? They could get some sexual pleasure but it was not as though they had an intact penis with a foreskin that has lots of sensitive nerve endings.

    I've been with cut men who had lots of trouble getting off and with some parts of their cut penis they had no feeling at all or the feeling was greatly reduced. Then there were the unsightly heavy scars on their penises.

    Once they saw the pleasure that I get because I have a foreskin they were jealous and angry that they did not get this.

    Women can have sex and sexual pleasure after FGM is done to them but it's not going to be the same and as if they had a vagina that was fully intact and had never had anything done to it. The sexual pleasure is going to be greatly reduced or non-existent in some parts.

    The same goes for men who have had their genitals mutilated.

  18. #18
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Texas - Dallas/FW
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    328

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    I'm amazed that some basic issues are still overlooked.

    1) There is no thing as a standardized "circumcision". The foreskin is integral to the penis (even fused in childhood) and there's no dotted line along which to cut. It's not like tonsils or the appendix which are identifiable structures. Circumcision is just less penile skin; unfortunately, it's a pretty evolved, vascular and innervated part of the penis that's surgically removed.

    No two American guys have the same circumcision, so it's ridiculout to talk about it as if it's 2 camps: intact and circumcised. It's more like intact and a few million ways to have less penis. Some guys have "loose cuts" and some are cut so tight you want to cry for them. Some have straight cuts, and some have dark, jagged scars. Several have skin tags and skin bridges from the operation. Most circumcised men have meatal stenosis. The great news is that the penis is so fundamental to how we function that it bounces back from even the most savage cutting. Isn't that comforting to know?

    2) Debates about sensitivity are bullshit, and fortunately there wasn't much of that here. Yes, the foreskin is sensitive and provides a vast amount of sensory feedback, when healthy and understood, but sensation shouldn't be confused with sensitivity. It is entirely possible for a circumcised guy to be more sensitive, because he lacks the mediating feedback from the foreskin. It's like the intact penis provides a balance of sweet and sour, high notes and low notes, while a penis lacking foreskin can be too "sweet" or too "sour". So I tend to believe guys who say they couldn't stand any more sensitivity; they'd probably have a more fulfilling and balanced sexual experience if they weren't cut.

    A guy who connects well to his intact penis would never want to be circumcised; one who never had a foreskin beyond Day 2 or who never learned to read the biofeedback from his prepuce is more inclined to be undaunted about circumcision. As it is, intact men overwhelmingly vote to stay that way... only about 6 per 100,000 Finnish men (a very intact society) opt to get cut.

  19. #19
    Cooling Off

    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Texas - Dallas/FW
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    328

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Here's the basic scoop from a buddy of mine, a university professor of neuranatomy:

    Circumcision cuts into and cuts off metres of important veins (blood return) and occasionally an artery (in the frenulum; blood supply). This alters the normal vascularity and ultimately the physiology of the penis, forcing a complex healing by putting capillaries into different duty. This affects the amount of blood that reaches the meatus -- likely an important component of meatal stenosis and the chief reason almost all intact men have functional meatal lips and most circumcised men don't. The meatal lips are the culmination of the raphe and are direct beneficiaries of the frenular artery. The lips, of course, are what close tightly together to keep pathogens out of the urethra. Another marvel of nature.

    Also, the veins running through the foreskin ensure that in its relaxed, forward position the prepuce is not just a blanket, but a heated blanket. This in turn regulates the temperature of the glans, which in turn helps determine how close to the body the testicles ride (cool=closer to body=less sperm produced). Most circumised males have a consistently colder glans than intact males; some have an uncomfortably cold glans, particularly after sitting for long periods or after sports.

    The efficiency of bloodflow through the foreskin & glans is a factor in proper tumescence and detumescence, though the body works mightily to overcome the vascular obstacles posed by the severing of a significant chunk of the venous system of the penis through circumcision. The alternate "mapping" the body is forced to do after iatrogenic injury is a marvel of nature, but never quite as effective as the original.

    One of the foreskin's primary functions is to serve as an "early alert" system to tumescence; it is ultra-sensitive to any change in diameter of the glans and lets a male know well in advance of any change. Obviously, without a foreskin there is no monitoring of the glans and some circumcised males joke that they are well on their way to erection before they realize it. Not a big problem in most settings, but also not the way the body was designed to work.

    The skin of the penis is unique on all the body, in that it is not attached to the underlying fascia. You can actually roll the tip of the foreskin all the way down to the pubic bone (depending on the elasticity of the frenulum). The body achieves this through a complexly-evolved nerve system that does not have the nerve endings run down from layer to layer as on the rest of the body; but rather, laterally in a specialized structure that allows complete freedom of the gliding top layer of skin. This means that the nerve endings are in fact attached to the body only at their extreme ends -- the pubis, and where the foreskin doubles back again and "ends" at the sulcus behind the glans. Since the rested foreskin is doubled-over, any cut that "shortens" it in this doubled state actually removes a cylindrical section from this sleeve, short-circuiting the complex nerve structure. Again, the body springs into action to repair this injury by having nerve endings attach over time to whatever nerves are nearby; but the section of the brain that corresponds to the nerve endings severed through circumcision go "black" and remain that way.

    Circumcision, as a wound, also lays down a complex and irrreversible system of fibroblasts at the site of the circumcision scar, between layers of skin and the underlying fascia. Invisible to the naked eye, this dense web of cells defeats the purpose of the unique outer skin structure of the penis by creating an "anchor" which limits the mobility of the shaft skin and its gliding mechanism so important to sex. It is also why so many men at some point encounter difficulty with foreskin restoration, as these fibroblasts first need to break down before progress in stretching can be made.

    My take on it is that some people don't care about any of this. They just like circumcision because they think cut cocks are "prettier".

  20. #20
    Member

    Gender
    Female
    Location

    AU - Queensland
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    281

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown View Post
    Proving that women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

    When was the last time they had an actual penis? Where's your medical degree?

    Since you claim that male genital mutilation is no big deal at all then it should not be a big deal if you get your clitoral hood removed.

    Yes you can compare FGM or female genital mutilation with MGM or male genital mutilation.

    I don't believe in circumcision at all for anyone.

    Did you even read my post about how I'd been with lots of cut men who had major issues because of circumcision? They could get some sexual pleasure but it was not as though they had an intact penis with a foreskin that has lots of sensitive nerve endings.

    I've been with cut men who had lots of trouble getting off and with some parts of their cut penis they had no feeling at all or the feeling was greatly reduced. Then there were the unsightly heavy scars on their penises.

    Once they saw the pleasure that I get because I have a foreskin they were jealous and angry that they did not get this.

    Women can have sex and sexual pleasure after FGM is done to them but it's not going to be the same and as if they had a vagina that was fully intact and had never had anything done to it. The sexual pleasure is going to be greatly reduced or non-existent in some parts.

    The same goes for men who have had their genitals mutilated.
    yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

    as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!
    Last edited by bizel; May 20, 2011 at 5:14 PM.

  21. #21
    Some Kind of Super Member

    Gender
    Male
    Location

    Ontario - South
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,865

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Katja View Post
    Drew will deal with him how? By banning him? What has the man said to justify that? That you don't like the message or messenger? So much for the much lauded American ideal of freedom of speech. I don't like the pro-circumcision lobby's stance but the last thing I would do is to try and have its advocates gagged or banned however inflammatory they may be.
    Good points Katja.

    Both Pasa and Twyla/DD have been banned previously. By reading previous threads, it is not hard for a new poster to read the comments of Pasa and the many thousands of comments from Twyla/ DD and connect the dot to the same character with a different name after Twyla was banned.

    I suspect that this is an attempt to dismiss Drug Store's view by labelling/connecting Drug Store as a previous banned "troll" (showing himself). Perhaps in some poster's minds, labelling someone a troll automatically dismisses their thoughts as worthy of consideration?......a strange group Borg thought process maybe.. What does it matter if he is the same character? After all, Twyla was banned and she is DD now...no different from whether Drug Store is really a previously banned poster. Follow the rules and you should be able to comment...if you are bisexual...lol

    As far as SF, I wonder what are the consequences beyond male circumcision as far as parental rights to make medical/cosmetic decisions for their male children? Why is the line drawn at circumcision versus accepting or denying a parent the right to prevent their son from getting his nose, ear, penis, scrotum, belly button pierced as a five to seventeen year year old? Would it ban parents from having any input in these cosmetic procedures done on the young guy?
    Last edited by tenni; May 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM.

  22. #22
    Some Kind of Super Member

    Gender
    Male
    Location

    Ontario - South
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    4,865

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    I don't understand why a heterosexual woman feels the need to comment on male circumcision on a bisexual website? How does this topic connect to being a partner of a bisexual man? Do you have a son or hoping to have a son? What are you getting out of this? Do you have a growing sense of entitlement now on this site? wtf??

    Quote Originally Posted by bizel View Post
    yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

    as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!

  23. #23
    Banned

    Gender
    Couple - M/F
    Location

    Other
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    807

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by bizel View Post
    yes, you are correct. i am a woman, i don't have a penis. and i get really fed up with that argument as well. i don't need to fall off a cliff to know the landing is going to hurt! and only women doctors can treat woman cos they share the same equipment. yes, they SOMETIMES have more empathy but sometimes they don't. so don't you tell me i'm not entitled to have an opinion. i know plenty of cut guys, and have read plenty of things from cut guys and unless they are all the biggest liars, they are happy and sexually active and experiencing great sex.

    as for 'women sticking their noses out of male's genitals', how about if male circumcision is so horrendous, father's actually develop a spine and put their foot down?? because if it were true, fathers around the world would have outlawed this ages ago. men are incredibly protective of their 'old fellas' and they have been the lawmakers for centuries. it's not like women have had the power to control this. and the fact that you claim female circumcision is the same as male in result, clearly to me says you have no empathy for female sexual pleasure and have issues that go beyond your groin. start blaming the fathers as well. they have a voice, they had the choice!
    Bizel, cool it.
    Please.
    You show compassion, yet misunderstanding.
    My father also was natural (uncut). In WWII the army required him to be cut. He refused. It didn't happen. He had no regrets (why should he? I'm sure he would have told them to also go to hell if they told him to get lobotomized or cut toes or fingers off).
    I could see if I was forced into doing something and was afraid to stand up to it, and allowed it to be done, I would look back on it with my male ego like 'it was probably the best thing', and find some incidental positives too. A clear form of 'adaptive preference formation' (subset of cognitive dissonance). We've already seen many examples of this on these threads.

    And despite modern rhetoric, FGM and MGM share much in common.
    Both are done on innocent children.
    Both are sexual mutilation/molestation.
    Both are intended and succeed to critically reduce sexual feeling/gratification hopefully without killing procreation ability.
    Both are for the cleanliness of the victim.
    Both are very painful. Except for Rizzababies male children. She assured us they escaped all pain when she did it to them/him. We can take her word for it.
    Both are customs.
    Both are farces.
    Both are wrong, doubly so when enforced by a member of the opposite sex. A man has no business endorsing FGM as a woman has no business endorsing MGM. If you're unable to see why that's wrong on two levels... take some time.

    As far as your references of 'cut guys'...
    Don't write any masters' thesis papers using your logic method, you'll never graduate.

    But keep with your empathy and you'll find the right path.

  24. #24
    Member

    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Georgia - Other Areas
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    101

    Angry Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Tenni.... becuase some of us women HAVE male children?.. and its not only a SEXUAL issue.

    Flay me and castigate me, oh all-knowing Zealots!! I have a son who I did not have cut * BUT WISH I HAD*!!
    The Skin issues, the adhesions, the doctor forcibly retracting his not-yet-ready foreskin to teh base of his penis when he was still so very young.The subsiquent infections....
    oh Yes, I've live dthis and my son is living it... and yet as a teenager.. I cannot stand over his shoulder and ensure that he cleans himself properly! All teh talks about hygeine, all the " Boy, make sure...".. yeah.. uhuh.. RIIIIGHT.Anyone whose raised a child can tell you just how well that registers.All I have to do now is look at teh fight I have to get him to keep his hair clean...liek many teenage boys.. shower tiem is about "personal time"... which may or may NOT coincide with real hygiene.Makes me shudder.

    So many of you can just go jump in your own self righteous ponds and stew in teh mental muck you so diligently throw at others.

    No wonder I rarely look at the threads...
    Nin

  25. #25
    Banned

    Gender
    Male
    Location

    Ontario
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,211

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieknyc View Post
    Hopefully this racist proposal will be defeated, and if it isn't it will be stricken down bny the courts.
    Then I can't wait for the ban on breast implants. We'll see how that goes over.

    Why is it that the strongest resentment against circumcision comes from the homosexual front? That is the one thing I've learned within these stupid threads. I like my cut cock. I don't care if you do or not. If you don't then don't suck it. Very easy. It is nothing but pure politics and a certain group pushing their agenda for their own good.

    For fuck's sake!!! Get over yourselves already!!!

  26. #26
    Some Kind of Super Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location

    NZ - Other
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,697

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    As Jamie pointed out, and he is a lawyer with knowledge of the law actually works in the US no matter how many try to second guess our government, this law would not be allowed to stand. It would be a violation of Freedom of Religion. Next, we have a separation of church and state for a good reason. Third, what the people who approve of this proposed law do not understand and therefore will always underestimate. When it comes to a vote, all those people who are silent will be voting. They will be the ones that will take this rhetoric about people being child molesters to heart and not in the way you intend. They will not vote for this. They will be the ones who were circumsized at birth and had no problems. They will be the loving parents that circumsized their children as advised by a doctor. They will be the ones that will be counted when it counts. Not a few outraged posters on a bisexual site making the most out of rhetoric that is sure to do nothing but inflame.
    Standing hand in hand with my love

    Cara ch' 'm blaidd



  27. #27
    Unofficial Community Leader
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    New York - NYC Area
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,256

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by tenni View Post
    I don't understand why a heterosexual woman feels the need to comment on male circumcision on a bisexual website? How does this topic connect to being a partner of a bisexual man? Do you have a son or hoping to have a son? What are you getting out of this? Do you have a growing sense of entitlement now on this site? wtf??

    Tenni, Please.. have an on topic opinion or move on. You are like the old fart still combatin the cowboys and the indians that only live in your mind, but try to make us all relive your delusions. You are the second most mysoginystic, xenophobic, and damn near racist bloke on the block. So many people are too scared to get involved in your pettiness, But damn man, At your age, and how you try to show yourself as an "artistic" man. You should be able to rise above all this childishness that you relay. You offer less insight and ramble on, spending 40 minutes to edit and re edit thoughts to make yourself feel better, diluting any point you might have potentially made. In fact I never understood why you never have a full opinion. But normally end on a question or a smirk. BTW The story of the little girl you wrote twice in two different post, Made me shutter.


    Back to the topic of circ. I wish molestation would stop being used as a term in reference of. Honestly as a child victim of it. Its an insult to us. The thousands year old practice of removing a piece of flesh that doesn't inhibit growth, function, or remove all sensitivity is not molestation. Molestation involves sexual gratification and deviancy or a way to gain power and control over an individual. Circ is a preference, a preference granted the infant doesn't have choice in. But neither does an infant that gets her ears pierced, or a tribal child that gets forced tattooed to show status or tribe.

    Male circ shouldn't be banned, If it was you would see so many religious followers leave, their technology leave, their tax dollars, money... Leave.. There are still grown men that go and have it done, there are grown men that wish that it hadn't been done to them. Some boys need it, due to the fact that their foreskin didn't develop normally and it is too tight around the head of an erect penis, that friction from movement, sex, masturbation, causes intense pain and sometimes tearing, the scars remaining can cause even more pain and lessen retraction of the foreskin. They split the scars and hope it works, so for some circ may be what helps them lead a normal healthy sexual life.

    FEMALE CIRC is not comparable to male circ and to even be able to compare. the removal of the glans would have to take place. So lets back off that argument. Female circ is done in pubescent times, male circ at newborn stage, where chemicals are flooding through the body and even a action such as suckling a nipple, dummy, or bottle will cause pain relieving hormones to ease the discomfort.. Male circ is done to this day for esthetic reasons and health reasons *Where proven or not* Based on religious values. Female circ is done to make a woman less sexual, to make a girl less responsive, to make them not get pregnant at a young age, to make them less likely to cheat on their husband to whom they were most likely promised to by the time the child was school age. To gain power over the girl and to control her.. That is the true molestation.

    Shout out to Ninny ******Hugs girl**** You gave me a lady boner when I saw your post. LTNS!
    Last edited by littlerayofsunshine; May 21, 2011 at 1:37 AM.

  28. #28
    Some Kind of Super Member
    Gender
    Male
    Location

    NZ - Other
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    4,938

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    ladies have every right to talk about circumcision, after all, its the ladies who also want to enjoy a penis......

    I may own a penis but it doesn't give me the right to tell ladies that they should stay out of the thread, just cos they do not have a penis.... as they have the right to speak about their own personal perferences to do with penises

    it would be like telling males to STFU about breast cancer and breast removal, as it is important to the ladies to know that ladies with breast reconstruction surgery, that we see them as ladies still, that they are more than just a pair of breasts and a vagina......

    its a sad day when some bisexuals forget that there is more to the world than sex, cocks, pussy, casual sex and other bisexuals.....
    Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
    Gilbert K. Chesterton .


    It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
    Gilbert K. Chesterton


    Innocence is a form of insanity and self delusion

  29. #29
    Member
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    North West England
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    298

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling View Post
    It would be a violation of Freedom of Religion.
    The United States legal system almost certainly violates freedom of religion in many ways and of many religions, just as the laws of all nations do in sometimes small and sometimes large ways. Does it not violate the right of moslem men to take more than one wife? Does not the United States and many other countries violate the Roman Catholic faith by allowing contraception and abortion contrary to the articles of faith of that religion and the decisions of its Pontiff? Does not the United States and many other countries violate the freedom of religion of many faiths by allowing the practice of homosexuality?

    The United States and many other countries have abolished many barbaric practices of many religions such as slavery (and count Christianity and Judaism in on that one). Should Suttee now be allowed in India for example on grounds of freedom of religion? Interesting point is it not?

  30. #30
    Unofficial Community Leader
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    New York - NYC Area
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,256

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong View Post

    it would be like telling males to STFU about breast cancer and breast removal,
    I would just like to comment that men, especially those who are older and have developed what is Slangfully termed "Moobs", should have a "Moob" exam because they have the possibility of getting breast cancer too. That is one thing, that can cross both gender barriers. Its a small percentage, but still a reasonable cause to get an exam.

    Just sayin....

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top