Those with closed minds will never learn anything.Originally Posted by biguy71
But if you do want to learn how wrong you are, you will read the two articles I gave links to.
If you had bothered to read, you would see that one of the proposals by Republicans is to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
When we stop learning, we might as well just dig a hole, crawl in, and pull the dirt over ourselves.
- Falcon -
Wherever you go ... there you are.
Be yourself ... Everyone else is taken.
For my two cents...... I am circumsized. Was done when I was about 3 days old. I don't remember it. All through school I only saw circumsized penises. It wasn't until one day in High School, that I saw my Dad coming out of the shower, and he was uncut. I guess he saw my stare and I asked him why his thing looked so different then mine. I guess I was cut because it would make me look normal. Well now, thanks internet, I have seen many, many uncircumsized penises, and I like them, and wish I was given the choice do I want to or not. If I have a male child, I will not get him cut. I will show him how to make sure to keep it clean, and then as he gets older, if he says Dad, I want to look like yours then we can do it. I've noticed a lot of younger guys these days are being left intact, which means I still may get one to play with lol.
I prefer circumcised but that's just esthetics.
Honestly? i agree.
- Falcon -
Wherever you go ... there you are.
Be yourself ... Everyone else is taken.
NOT being sarcastic (HONEST!), but I wonder if there was no such thing as circumcision, would some look at a cock and think "Hmmm! Now if only that bit wasn't there....?".
Watered down what really happened here is a child was harmed. Law enforcement became aware of the situation and was put in the position of having to come to this child's defense as any law enforcement or judicial system should in a civil society. The parents who caused the child harm did so based on religious beliefs rather then sound medical advice. The end result is a human had his body altered irreversibly without ever being given the chance to make the decision for himself. Had it been a finger or an ear there would be no questioning it someone would be in jail. Why should this body part receive any different level of regard under the law?
We also need to remember that there are some cultures guided by religious belief that would deny our sisters and daughters education among other common liberties. If we wish to keep that sort of thing from becoming the norm we also need to look into our own communities and admit that there are some traditions that do not make sense and are simply continued for traditional purposes.
When we were expecting our son we sought out advice because it was customary in our community and I wanted to have the facts. Since we are talking about the human body for me the most appropriate authority is a medical doctor. The doctor’s advice was offered up with a small dose of humour to help drive the point home. I quote "Let him wear it off!"
If you do not know your Bible, Gear, then you would not know where all this comes from, or more so, what it is really about. It is an out front attack on religion.NOT being sarcastic (HONEST!), but I wonder if there was no such thing as circumcision, would some look at a cock and think "Hmmm! Now if only that bit wasn't there....?".
No it's not an attack on religion. There are Jews and even Muslims who are against male circumcision and see it as pointless genital mutilation which it is. I have a friend that's Jewish, he is not cut and no boys or men in his family are cut or have been cut, since they do not believe in it. He was not born in the United States either.
......Yup.
I emphasised that I wasn't being sarcastic to point out that I wasn't taking a cheap swipe at religion OR cut-cock lovers. It's just the aesthetic preference for cut-cocks I was thinking of.
A boy was harmed because he was performed a circumcision when he seemed to be somewhat too old to get one.
Which brings up a major point: the idea of performing a circumcision when you're older is MUCH more dangerous, and you remember the event. Furthermore, your penis doesn't develop around the circumcision. So, of course, the idea is no one would adopt circumcision.
Which means cultural genocide against Jews and Muslims. Anyone who doesn't understand this simply doesn't understand why there are so many Jews in the United States.
I'm a little confused as to what religion would deny our sisters and daughters education nowadays. Have you been to a conservative-Jewish school? More women than men! I'm really sick and tired of hearing rants about how abusive religions are to women. Yes, they can be abusive to women. But I think that the women should be asked if they find them abusive. Perhaps that's not fair because those women have been brought up and corrupted by the culture? It seems like women wearing a hijab don't have to put up with a lot sexual harassment, aside from Westerners who complain about it. Mind you I'm pretty against the hijab-nearly no Muslim women I've met wear them. And if you watch music videos out of the middle east, you'd find, culturally, they're not popular in media. And a lot of women choose not to wear them (if you've ever been to the middle east) and in some countries they're not worn at all.
The point of view people have of Muslims and circumcision is just a superiority complex. It isn't just anti-religious. Its outright racist. And since people who tend to support this are left wing activists if they're not Nazis, they have no means of understanding it. As someone who was born Jewish, I had no capacity to become an atheist in Europe. That means, I have a very different point of view towards European Atheism since I would've been killed long before I had a chance to embrace it for not being of Christian blood. Circumcision has its own problems. Banning it assumes people won't come to the point of view its bad. Its wholly racist. And again, such attitudes are why my family didn't live in Europe, where my ancestors would've been murdered, anyway.
It isn't directed so much at Jews, of whom there aren't a lot in the first place, who can easily have a circumcision done by one of the communities in a neighboring country that they have close ties with, and who are mostly older people anyway, since a large percentage of the younger generation have emigrated to Israel. It is really more about showing the large number of Moslem immigrants who is the boss.
This is mutilating the penis, circumcision is not.
Absolutely true, Jamie. But...why do Jews care? I'm for the most part an atheist?
Simple. Find me one group who has ever banned circumcision that has ever had the best interests of Jews in mind (Spain, 1492. That's a big example. I believe the Soviet Union did as well). One thing I've noticed from the anti-circumcision crowd as well:
1. Israel is a racist apartheid state, support Palestinian causes, unless there are no Jews involved, in which case, who cares? (Importantly, how can someone who is anti-nationalist support a Palestinian state, which is a nationalist concept? Its anti-some nationalism. That said, I'm an ardent critic of Israel and a supporter of Palestinian rights.)
2. Kosher (and usually Halal) slaughter is cruel to animals-ignore the fact we don't ban hunting in a lot of our countries and in fact encourage it to control the population, even if it takes the animal an hour to die from bleeding.
3. Muslims mistreat their women (and maybe Orthodox Jews as well, if considered). Nevermind how women seem to be treated in our countries. We don't like what we see and we've never really been there.
4. We can't be racist because we're anti-racist. We are anti-religious and all those who have different traditions? They need to be enlightened. If everyone was atheist, there would be no war, so let's just use all force necessary to rid the world of religion.
Last edited by EffectivelyDeleted; Jun 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM.
While I personally think that a pierced dick is a turn off, the person who got the piercing made the personal decision to do so, and it was done with their consent. With circumcision of an infant boy he has no consent at all and it is genital mutilation.
Elian no i did mean the spleen which simply fiters red n white cells and secondary fibres etc not needed liken the appendix, somewhat normal life can be achieved without it, just recently the docs have figured this out keep it if you can if not remove it which was the case with internal severe abdominal injuries and wounds.
So what's decided? Medical? Religious? Savage Ritual? or a tidy combination of this n that???
MarS,
Official Assistant Thread Killer
Get over it already(best whiny accent) was gonna leave it alone but why not. Guess theb 100+ yearv old jackn booted Nazis are gettingb under your skin. Oh well, non worries save your scheckles the Dreaded Drahkma is back! soon!! and your vacations will be super cheap!!I wonder when these "New Age" Nazi's will tell the government enough is enough. The Deutsch Mark afterall is alive and well in major banks vaults. Woops Spain's next and that's that!!. Those damn Brits didn't fall for the great Euro scheme, that's right they have an actual economy like us Krauts. Greek Beachfront for Sale, Cheap
next month. Get Over It already!!! Anyone for a Whisky??
MarS,
Official Assistant Thread Killer
Okay, thanks for the clarification, Lucy.
Impingentes nos adiuvat appretiaris iter. For those unable to translate Latin; "Stumbling helps us appreciate the journey."
The most recent statistics I could find were from 2007, at which time 98% of Jewish males were circumcised.
Actually, the number of circumcised Jews has gone up in recent years rather than down, as more Jews have access to it than in the past. Adult circumcision used to be a rare procedure in American hospitals until the late 1980s and 1990s, when a newer wave of Jewish refugees from Europe came to the United States, many of whom had been denied the right to have a circumcision as infants.
Which in my view is overwhelming proof of the fact people would choose to take the procedure when they're threatened with attitudes that you see out of the German court case when they're old enough to. That alone should demonstrate that its not immoral.
All it shows is that they're completely brainwashed by religious dogma. If Judaism and Islam said that male practitioners had to remove a finger I'm sure they'd do that since they're that blinded by dogma and religion. Then again circumcision has been proven to greatly decrease sexual pleasure and sensitivity in the penis and it's not needed at all. This isn't about adult circumcision as adults can consent and do whatever they want to their genitals; but it's about infant circumcision and ripping off an infant boy's foreskin is genital mutilation and he has no consent to this being done to him.
Last edited by drugstore cowboy; Jun 29, 2012 at 11:17 PM.
The important thing is, guess what? I enjoy sex and am fully functional. And I think my parents did a great job. Am I brainwashed? No. I don't see much value in the circumcision. But I'm not the type that was told I couldn't follow my heart on my religious beliefs. You say brainwashed by religious dogma for people who were forbidden who did it later in life. And then you say infants wouldn't want to do the same thing the adults do when they're old enough to understand. It turns out, you might be brainwashed by your own religious point of view. Yes, atheism.
If religion causes war and is thus evil and limits the human mind, what is a brand of atheism that banishes deviant thoughts and uses all force necessary to banish religion? I say...no different.
Last edited by EffectivelyDeleted; Jun 30, 2012 at 2:33 AM.
You don't know what you're missing, if you had a foreskin you'd have a more sensitive penis and get a lot more pleasure out of it and your partner(s) also would too. shame on you for wanting men to lose pleasure parts for your cultural bias. About 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings are what is involved and they are unique. Once cut off that whole source of sensation is GONE. They make sex better for the guy and his male and female partners, they do not result in premature ejaculation -- instead they give feedback and help with timing. Also, with no condom, there is a dynamic action several partners said is wonderful and more intimate -- connected. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that whant men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF. First, the proper terminology is "intact," "natural," or "normal" - NOT "uncircumcised." Second, having sex with a circumcised guy is like being poked with a broomstick. It's painful! Chopping off a fundamental part of the sexual organ has MANY negative effects on the man's sexuality. The foreskin has a PURPOSE: without it, the guy needs rougher sex that hurts the woman. He needs longer strokes that pull out lubrication, resulting in painful friction and irritation. He needs harder pounding, resulting in "bladder beating" and internal pain for the woman. A mutilated man has an on/off switch instead of an accelerator. Much less fun!!! Most of the men in the world are not cut and have foreskins. The foreskin adds a lovely velvety smoothness that I've never experienced with circumcised men.
Last edited by MelissaPDX; Jun 30, 2012 at 4:03 AM.
The vast majority of men in the world have normal, natural, intact penises. They work perfectly, they are clean, they don't suffer any problems. Sex was intended to involve a foreskin, it has several purposes and simply works better. How it looks is irrelevant, you can't seriously suggest that holding down a baby and ripping and cutting off parts of his penis is acceptable because it's pretty. It's a travesty, a human being should be entitled to keep all of their functioning body parts. I'm wary of circumcised men, because I don't want to hurt them. I think their penises are maimed, and inferior, and certainly not normal. Which brings me to my point - it is not normal to be so revolted and disgusted by something that is natural. What I am suggesting is that any man or woman who gets so offended by the sight of a foreskin, even on a little baby, has been severely culturally brainwashed. Now, if you defend yourself by saying that you are not prejudiced, but simply have a preference for the cut penis, then I ask you: what preference does a male infant who is about to be circumcised have? Huh? Do you actually think that any person other than that baby, that individual, can answer for him, can speak with authority about what he wants for his penis? So now maybe you can begin to see that your prejudice (yes, yours) perpetuates this abuse, this bodily assault, of male infant circumcision. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that want men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF, well how about if men wanted that from you?
You don't know what you're missing, if you had a foreskin you'd have a more sensitive penis and get a lot more pleasure out of it and your partner(s) also would too. shame on you for wanting men to lose pleasure parts for your cultural bias. About 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings are what is involved and they are unique. Once cut off that whole source of sensation is GONE. They make sex better for the guy and his male and female partners, they do not result in premature ejaculation -- instead they give feedback and help with timing. Also, with no condom, there is a dynamic action several partners said is wonderful and more intimate -- connected. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that whant men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF. First, the proper terminology is "intact," "natural," or "normal" - NOT "uncircumcised." Second, having sex with a circumcised guy is like being poked with a broomstick. It's painful! Chopping off a fundamental part of the sexual organ has MANY negative effects on the man's sexuality. The foreskin has a PURPOSE: without it, the guy needs rougher sex that hurts the woman. He needs longer strokes that pull out lubrication, resulting in painful friction and irritation. He needs harder pounding, resulting in "bladder beating" and internal pain for the woman. A mutilated man has an on/off switch instead of an accelerator. Much less fun!!! Most of the men in the world are not cut and have foreskins. The foreskin adds a lovely velvety smoothness that I've never experienced with circumcised men.
coughlans syndrome ? ... it can result in the same issues that you talk about in circumcised males .... so your statement about circumcised males and what they can have to deal with, is some what exclusive of other issues that can cause the same effect........
much of what you claim about the way that circumcised males have sex, is based around what ? your personal experiences with males that perfer sex that way, books you have read, websites that you have read ?????
many others have talked about different sizes, lengths, thicknesses, cut and uncut in different threads... but you are the first person to claim that cut guys fuck a certain way.... some you wanna share any med sites that can back up what you claim, as medical fact.... or it is just your own opinion that cut guys all fuck the same way ?
Last edited by Long Duck Dong; Jun 30, 2012 at 6:05 AM.
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
You're absolutely right. Every time I orgasm and feel close to someone and enjoy myself, I'm lying. That ejaculate did not leave my penis. I did not absolutely love what I felt and wanted to try it again. Being circumcised, I'm too stupid to know what I enjoy.You don't know what you're missing, if you had a foreskin you'd have a more sensitive penis and get a lot more pleasure out of it and your partner(s) also would too. shame on you for wanting men to lose pleasure parts for your cultural bias. About 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings are what is involved and they are unique. Once cut off that whole source of sensation is GONE. They make sex better for the guy and his male and female partners, they do not result in premature ejaculation -- instead they give feedback and help with timing. Also, with no condom, there is a dynamic action several partners said is wonderful and more intimate -- connected. I think an opinion that natural is somehow bad is not based on good information. Those that whant men to have natural pleasure parts CUT OFF. First, the proper terminology is "intact," "natural," or "normal" - NOT "uncircumcised." Second, having sex with a circumcised guy is like being poked with a broomstick. It's painful! Chopping off a fundamental part of the sexual organ has MANY negative effects on the man's sexuality. The foreskin has a PURPOSE: without it, the guy needs rougher sex that hurts the woman. He needs longer strokes that pull out lubrication, resulting in painful friction and irritation. He needs harder pounding, resulting in "bladder beating" and internal pain for the woman. A mutilated man has an on/off switch instead of an accelerator. Much less fun!!! Most of the men in the world are not cut and have foreskins. The foreskin adds a lovely velvety smoothness that I've never experienced with circumcised men.
And shame on you for knowing how my family should live their lives better than my family. You talk about cultural bias? I'm not saying circumcise everyone at all. I'm talking about religious freedom and unlike you, I don't think its negatively affected my life.
Oh, and one other thing-20000 nerve endings isn't a big deal. Compared to how many there are in the whole penis, that's nothing. I find it tough to believe the number in the foreskin are that small, and if it really is, I'm inclined to say, even less of a big deal.
I'm done dealing with this post and this argument. A lot of people against circumcision and looking to ban it, as opposed to disliking it, seem to forget that millions of people are willing to die for their religion and think its infinitely more important than your thoughts. This issue has been used to ban religions in the past on the basis of cruelty. Yet people still do it and want to continue doing it. Your beliefs if you support banning it go against cultural tolerance, and furthermore, support a slippery slope in which you say our barbaric beliefs don't matter, and we have to give up our god and embrace yours, or your lack thereof. The communists made this argument and made cirucmcision near impossible in the USSR and subsequently Jews left their old homeland when they got the chance. Nowadays this argument is generally made amongst people who either 1. Hate the state of Israel and think that Jewish religion is cruel (that Jews are barbarians) or 2. Hate Muslims, their immigration, and think Islamic religion is cruel (that its incompatible with "Western Thought")-I've seen very little from people who want to ban circumcision from people who have any respect for religions. Even the Catholic Church is opposed to banning it on this basis. Now, is your belief in "no god" really worth imposing on others? Are there religious people who are opposed to circumcision? Certainly. But is it a coincidence that the greatest support for circumcision comes from religious areas, and the greatest opposition tends to come from people who have a problem with US foreign policy or immigration?
And why can't any of the people acknowledge how that MIGHT be racist? If you read David Duke, he always says he's not a racist. And he might genuinely believe he's not. And you can oppose circumcision and not be a racist. Nonetheless, the arguments I read when it comes to banning religious practices always seem to apply to minorities as far as civilization is concerned. If only us Muslims and Jews didn't have our crummy, backwards religion, we wouldn't be such awful people and support awful things because we'd think like you.
We don't want to think like you. Get used to it. And we don't think you have our best interests at heart, and certainly not the best interests of our children, based on the fact you condemn our parents and seem to attack everything we've been brought up to believe on the basis of a complete lack of understanding of not just our religion, but our thoughts on religious tolerance. We aren't trying to convert you for the most part, why on EARTH are you trying to convert us?
Last edited by EffectivelyDeleted; Jun 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM.
I would have liked to be able to make up my own mind about being circumcised. I don't care what anyone else thinks about it; it's not big deal, but I don't appreciate that the decision was made for me.
I've only had two lovers, and one acquaintance, who were uncut, and sex with them was amazing. Giving hand jobs, alone, was a great experience! I could grasp their cocks anywhere and still have enough skin for a full stroke. Unlike me, if grasped at the top, the skin will get tight and painful, before a full stroke is done. I didn't have anal with any of them, but I suspect that would be easier, too.
I've heard the arguments about disease and filth. But those guys were fastidiously clean and I never detected any objectionable odor. I enjoyed them!
I've certainly didn't mind the other male lovers being cut!
Last edited by Realist; Jun 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM. Reason: left something out
I read posts on this thread and accusations of racism, religious intolerance and Nazism don't entirely surprise me.. not from people from a nation who pride themselves in being the most free in the world, and where the liberty of the individual is all, and freedom of choice so important, and the principle of consent is so strong and powerfully ingrained in its people.. and here we are.. arguing about an issue which results in the forcible removal of a bodily part without the informed and educated consent of the individual whose bodily part it is, thus removing that from that person the freedom forever of choice of whether to consent or otherwise when he is old and mature enough to know and decide for himself what he would prefer...
I neither hate muslims, loathe Jews, nor do I detest any who has opted for their children to be circumcised.. I simply know a wrong when I see it... I live in a culture where it is not routine and oppose the forced circumcision of any person save for pressing medical need.. it has nothing to do with religion, race or anything else.. and Jim, it has bugger all to do with American foreign policy... few take decisions on their children's future on that basis... what it has to do with is the right of the individual to decide for whatever reason what happens to his body when he is old enough and informed enough so to do.. it is one thing to guide and advise..it is quite another to take a decision out of the hands of the person concerned with no recourse to appeal...
Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.
Fran, just because you think it's not racist doesn't mean it's not racist. As someone who dislikes circumcision I can say I'm not mutilated, only one friend of mine actively complained about it, and non-circumcised men I've been with have in fact apologized over it at times.
Thats not to say there is anything wrong with foreskin. But over here it's not the norm and men who have it tend to like it. That's the point you tend to miss.
The reason the position is racist is quite simple. It provides the parents with no choices of their own aside from go against what they think to be right for the child based on the opinion of people not from the culture with a history of hostility towards the practice and importantly people of the practice. When you have the same types of people complaining about their homelands without basis half the time, banning their type of food practices, banning their types of architecture, and banning these practices, it's very difficult to see how it is not racist. Even if you are not racist you are supporting the same position as the neo-nazi parties and it's impossible to tell you aren't one of them on the point since there is no compassion for the immigrants culture-rather, based on western viewpoints of Muslims there is little way to escape the obvious subconscious hostility. Have you asked yourself why this anti circ movement isn't alive and well among the secular in the middle east? Because there are millions of secular modernists. Why is it that the socialist European position is so far away from theirs?
If you dismiss these points quickly, it means simply you don't understand the point of view of the Muslim and Jewish communities.
How in the heck can you say that the issue of circumcision is a RACIAL one? I don't understand, YES a LAW limiting personal freedom is of questionable merit..but racist? Are you saying that only WHITE people circumcise their children..?
Of course your point of view of whose personal freedom is limited depends on the beholder. It either limits the rights of the child by not having the law, or it limits the rights of the parents by protecting the infant. Here in the US parents have the responsibility to act as the child's legal guardian and also take on the financial and personal obligation of supposedly protecting the best interests of the child.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks