Religious Circumcision

[darkeyes]

We have often discussed this issue... but I didn't expect this from Germany.. and if I may say so.. if they can get it to stick... good.

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

[jimdawg]

Whee, time to kick all the Jews out of the Germany (again). Nothing to be remotely disturbed about here. The Muslim Immigrants should just go elsewhere if they don't completely agree with our system of values.

This of course won't end circumcision any more than banning abortion ends abortion. It'll drive it underground and turn people into criminals for just being themselves. And those that don't want to do this in the inquisition style will just leave and then hold a grudge, thus meaning that it won't actually prevent circumcision, but it will certainly cause a lot of angry people to hate Germany.

Also, I would add, it means the primacy of people of White, Christian heritage for being civilized over...well, Muslims, Jews, and Americans: 30% of the world's circumcised and being told they're barbaric certainly won't enlighten them.

[mariersa]

It's about time someone has taken a position on this nonsensical "religious" ritual, the 4skin must be in the spleen category, oh well ya don't need it? so cut it out/off What a crazy excuse to throw a party around the old fire, waving hand crafted spears etc. and hey we'll do it in honour of that idol we made yesterday afterall, sacrifice is sacrifice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, uncut guys are a hell of a lot cleaner and most definitely more sensative, sensual. But that's all in another thread. Just my 5 Deutsch Marks worth!!!

[darkeyes]

Also, I would add, it means the primacy of people of White, Christian heritage for being civilized over...well, Muslims, Jews, and Americans: 30% of the world's circumcised and being told they're barbaric certainly won't enlighten them.
It doesn't mean any of the things u say.. what it means is that babies and children will no longer be circumcised without the opportunity of consenting for themselves when they are old enough so to do and can weigh it up after having been given the information for them to make up their own minds.. not the minds of anyone else...

Abortion is not a like issue since where abortion is available, women who are pregnant can already do that.

[jamieknyc]

Without getting deeper into a pissing match, I will only point out that this sort of thing is the reason why tens of millions of people from every country in Europe emigrated to America.

[i_shoot_blanks]

Will "Obamacare" cover circumcision???????

[jarhead]

Apparently Germany is back to its old tricks of anti semitism, while all of Europe is looking to the good ole days of the dark ages. Well done, you jack booted, goose stepping Nazi's.

[darkeyes]

Apparently Germany is back to its old tricks of anti semitism, while all of Europe is looking to the gooame in to your homed ole days of the dark ages. Well done, you jack booted, goose stepping Nazi's.
Hardly Nazi.. it is hardy a Nazi thing to take a decision to prevent the compulsory mutilation of a child when that child is new born or not mature enough to make an informed decision for himself... if a gang of big heavies came into your home right now, grabbed you, slammed you on a big metal tray, strapped or held u down and took a bloody great knife to your willie and whipped of your foreskin (assuming you had one) thus taking away your freedom of choice.. if that happened I suspect you would be more than a little miffed... now that can be argued as being a Nazi-ish kind of thing to do...... there is no ban on circumcision.. only circumcision without the consent of the individual whose body part is to be lopped off....

No one is preventing Muslims or Jews or anyone else from having circumcisions... only from deciding and insisting that someone else other then themselves do and giving that person no choice in the matter..

[elian]

Without getting deeper into a pissing match, I will only point out that this sort of thing is the reason why tens of millions of people from every country in Europe emigrated to America. Yes, but apparently no one bothered to mention it to the people who live here, for all the "freedom" we have here all the men I have ever seen in America ARE circumcised. Apparently I WAS a piece of property, at least while my parents poured their heart, soul, time and money into raising me. Like any other parents they probably didn't want their son to be "different" from the others, lest it be perceived as a disadvantage. Well that, and there is the hellfire and brimstone peer pressure. Oh well, they did what they thought was best, I'm not going to "hate" them for it.

[biguy71]

We have often discussed this issue... but I didn't expect this from Germany.. and if I may say so.. if they can get it to stick... good.

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Why don't you worry about your kids and let other people worry about theirs. Circumcision is not a harmful procedure. Nearly every American male of my generation is circumcised, including me.

[12voltman59]

Some medical information regarding this subject:

http://www.surgery4children.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201:circumcision&catid=56:genitourinary&Itemid=147

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

It does seem that based on what many medical societies around the world have determined--there really is no medical reason for this procedure to be performed and that doing it---now stems more from traditions and religious dictates of various groups.

I would say that based on what the doctors now say---if were to have a male child now---I would not have him circumcised.

[jimdawg]

Exactly, voltman. And such attitudes will I believe prevail.

Banning circumcision? That's just again telling people they're barbaric. Those who disagree with this must answer the question why its almost only white people protesting who don't have Jewish or Muslim roots. I'm not sure I'd get my children circumcised at all, but when I read about how evil it is, considering I am circumcised myself, it makes me want to do it to say that no, in fact, I'm not a White European Christian. That's not to say I have anything against them. Its just not what I am and I don't want to be forced to act like I am from that culture. It must be understood that this barbaric, unnecessary behavior is a declaration of independence from the Inquisition, that the non-Christian, in particular cultured Arabized soul is not yet dead. Education will end it, not bans.

[biguy71]

It's disturbing how many people are so willing to turn over to the government the ability to make decisions for us. Things like this are the prerogative of parents. You might disagree with the decisions people make, but that just goes along with living in a free society. Nobody has the right to take away somebody else's freedom just because they disagree with how they exercise it. Fortunately, laws such as this would never be passed in the United States.

[jarhead]

Some medical information regarding this subject:

http://www.surgery4children.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201:circumcision&catid=56:genitourinary&Itemid=147

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

It does seem that based on what many medical societies around the world have determined--there really is no medical reason for this procedure to be performed and that doing it---now stems more from traditions and religious dictates of various groups.

I would say that based on what the doctors now say---if were to have a male child now---I would not have him circumcised.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page5.htm

You'll see from this article that there are many benefits from circumcission, not to mention studies that suggest a 60% less chance of HIV/AIDS. For sure, if I were to have another baby boy, which is not going to happen, the child would be circumsized and not just for religous reasons.

[Plumhead2]

As can be seen from the responses to this thread, there really is not an easy answer to this topic. There is a fine line, especially in this country, between government interference in parental and religious matters and the concern for the rights of the child. What is mutilation, disfigurement and child abuse to one group of people is a religious rite that reaches the very core of the religion of another group of people. A circumsized penis is a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. Some questions just won't yield to easy answers and the debate about this one will probably go on for a long time. As unsettling as it may sound, some questions have no right answers that will placate everyone. In cultural battles such as this one, wars will be fought, battles will be won and overturned, and on and on . . . Meanwhile people are left to make the decisions for themselves and accept the consequences of those decisions.

[falcondfw]

It's disturbing how many people are so willing to turn over to the government the ability to make decisions for us. Things like this are the prerogative of parents. You might disagree with the decisions people make, but that just goes along with living in a free society. Nobody has the right to take away somebody else's freedom just because they disagree with how they exercise it. Fortunately, laws such as this would never be passed in the United States.

Really? Ever hear of Obamacare? lol

[jamieknyc]

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page5.htm

You'll see from this article that there are many benefits from circumcission, not to mention studies that suggest a 60% less chance of HIV/AIDS. For sure, if I were to have another baby boy, which is not going to happen, the child would be circumsized and not just for religous reasons.

The health issues are merely a pretext. This is really about keeping out Moslem immigrants and is another form of what is called 'eco-racism.'

[benbidwell]

Without getting deeper into a pissing match, I will only point out that this sort of thing is the reason why tens of millions of people from every country in Europe emigrated to America.
I totally agree Jamie, those that do not know what the sign means, mean well but truly do not understand.

[mariersa]

I totally agree Jamie, those that do not know what the sign means, mean well but truly do not understand.

Does the sign mean " I have a choice?" or " I'm free to make one?" or ", I gotta get away from this shit" etc has anyone ever researched why this practice began, was it religious, medical or just why not? let's have some fun over the old fire consuming this new magical liquid we're brewing. Quick, get him he's got a real hanger!!

[The Young Pretender]

Given the blood-curdling screaming of an infant during a circumcision, I see it a preventing cruelty against children.

[void()]

It's about time someone has taken a position on this nonsensical "religious" ritual, the 4skin must be in the spleen category, oh well ya don't need it? so cut it out/off What a crazy excuse to throw a party around the old fire, waving hand crafted spears etc. and hey we'll do it in honour of that idol we made yesterday afterall, sacrifice is sacrifice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, uncut guys are a hell of a lot cleaner and most definitely more sensative, sensual. But that's all in another thread. Just my 5 Deutsch Marks worth!!!

Erm ... Actually the spleen is is needed. Not quite sure of it's exact purpose, thinking it helps regulate internal toxins or some such, but it is needed. You may be thinking about the appendix, which at present does not seem to be needed.

Further, I don't quite understand why Christian Americans circumcise (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009060804AA8MnUV). What religious benefit is it to them, how? Seems only applicable to Jews and Muslims.

[jarhead]

Mutilating a boy's genitals does not prevent HIV infection, and it's not nearly as effective as using a condom and having safer sex correctly. If what you claim about HIV were actually true then how come in the United States an entire generation or two of bisexual and gay men who were pretty much all cut at birth died of AIDS or were infected with HIV?

I was citing the article, if you're not happy with that, go the full measure and emasculate yourself.

[biguy71]

Really? Ever hear of Obamacare? lol

It's not the Democrats who consistently try to tell people which medical precedures they can and can't have. Medical decisions should be between a patient and their doctor. Politicians (i.e. conservative Repblicans) and the insurance companies who finance their campaigns should have no say in the matter. Protecting patients from insurance companies is one of the main goals of what you refer to as Obamacare. I don't agree with everything in Obama's health care package, but at least he is addressing some pretty big issues, unlike the Republicans whose sole reason for existence seems to be maintaining the far less than ideal status quo.

[elian]

Really? Ever hear of Obamacare? lol My favorite was the roving death squads argument. Oh the horror (!), a panel of people is going to decide whether *I* live or die.. HEY WAIT, isn't that what private insurance companies ALREADY do? They get to decide for millions of people every day who gets care and who doesn't..with pretty much no oversight other than the threat of legal action. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure private industry also had their hand in the cookie jar for the new government healthcare law too, just like with "Medicare prescription drug coverage" - or should I say - "We can't have busloads of people smuggling drugs in from Canada". It's not that I don't think corporations can do a good job running themselves, but I see so many of them focused only on short term profit these days.

[falcondfw]

It's not the Democrats who consistently try to tell people which medical precedures they can and can't have. Medical decisions should be between a patient and their doctor. Politicians (i.e. conservative Repblicans) and the insurance companies who finance their campaigns should have no say in the matter. Protecting patients from insurance companies is one of the main goals of what you refer to as Obamacare. I don't agree with everything in Obama's health care package, but at least he is addressing some pretty big issues, unlike the Republicans whose sole reason for existence seems to be maintaining the far less than ideal status quo.

I think you need to check your facts on GOP proposals for health care. Try here : http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/08/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-factbox-idUSTRE61757T20100208

and here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/republican-health-care-pl_n_205728.html

[biguy71]

I think you need to check your facts on GOP proposals for health care. Try here : http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/08/us-usa-healthcare-republicans-factbox-idUSTRE61757T20100208

and here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/republican-health-care-pl_n_205728.html

You just used "GOP" and "facts" in the same sentence. That's hilarious!

I already know all about what the GOP wants. It's to preserve the insurance racket. I call it a racket because the only industry that rips off its customers more is the casino industry. At least casinos are up front about what they do and people get some sort of entertainment value for their money. At least that's what people I know who actually go to those places say.

In all seriousness, though, I read the actual proposal when it was put forward in 2009, so I don't need to read about it in the Huffington Post three years later. The basis of their proposal was to keep everything privatized and do nothing to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage or dropping their customers as they see fit. That's unacceptable. They just want to preserve the insurance industry as the most lucrative industry in the world for reasons which I have already stated.

I just spent a lot more energy than I generally like to in a conversation with a Republican, so this conversation is now over.

[falcondfw]

You just used "GOP" and "facts" in the same sentence. That's hilarious!

I already know all about what the GOP wants. It's to preserve the insurance racket. I call it a racket because the only industry that rips off its customers more is the casino industry. At least casinos are up front about what they do and people get some sort of entertainment value for their money. At least that's what people I know who actually go to those places say.

In all seriousness, though, I read the actual proposal when it was put forward in 2009, so I don't need to read about it in the Huffington Post three years later. The basis of their proposal was to keep everything privatized and do nothing to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage or dropping their customers as they see fit. That's unacceptable. They just want to preserve the insurance industry as the most lucrative industry in the world for reasons which I have already stated.

I just spent a lot more energy than I generally like to in a conversation with a Republican, so this conversation is now over.

Those with closed minds will never learn anything.
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.

[dick_pumper]

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.

[æonpax]

I prefer circumcised but that's just esthetics.

[falcondfw]

I prefer circumcised but that's just esthetics.

Honestly? i agree.

[Gearbox]

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....?".:confused:

[BigZipper]

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!"

[jarhead]

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....?".:confused:

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.

[ExSailor]

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. 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.

[æonpax]

Honestly? i agree.

......Yup.

[Gearbox]

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.
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.:)

[jimdawg]

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.

[jamieknyc]

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.

[jarhead]

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.


http://www.bodymod.org/Pierce/PierceImages/35589/BlackPenisPA7-full.jpg

This is mutilating the penis, circumcision is not.

[jimdawg]

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.

[ExSailor]

This is mutilating the penis, circumcision is not. 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.

[mariersa]

Erm ... Actually the spleen is is needed. Not quite sure of it's exact purpose, thinking it helps regulate internal toxins or some such, but it is needed. You may be thinking about the appendix, which at present does not seem to be needed.

Further, I don't quite understand why Christian Americans circumcise (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009060804AA8MnUV). What religious benefit is it to them, how? Seems only applicable to Jews and Muslims.

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???

[mariersa]

Apparently Germany is back to its old tricks of anti semitism, while all of Europe is looking to the good ole days of the dark ages. Well done, you jack booted, goose stepping Nazi's.

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??

[void()]

Elian no ...

Okay, thanks for the clarification, Lucy. ;)

[jamieknyc]

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.

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.

[jimdawg]

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.

[jimdawg]

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.

[MelissaPDX]

I enjoy sex and am fully functional. 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. :) I've been with both, and I have to say I definitely prefer the uncircumcised penis. Comparing the two, the circumcised penis is almost leathery, whereas the uncircumcised penis in so silky soft and wonderful feeling. I'll admit, I had a bias at first, since I'm American and the vast majority of penises in my age range are circumcised, but given the choice, I'll never go back to rough, leathery penis heads! There are also things that you can do with a foreskin that give the man and you a lot of pleasure that you simply can't do with men who are cut at all since they don't have a foreskin and do not get nearly as much pleasure from their penis as men with an intact foreskin do. As a woman, I have been with both cut and uncut men, and to be there is a difference. Natural men feel waaaaaay better. just sayin

[MelissaPDX]

I prefer circumcised but that's just esthetics. 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?

[Long Duck Dong]

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. :) I've been with both, and I have to say I definitely prefer the uncircumcised penis. Comparing the two, the circumcised penis is almost leathery, whereas the uncircumcised penis in so silky soft and wonderful feeling. I'll admit, I had a bias at first, since I'm American and the vast majority of penises in my age range are circumcised, but given the choice, I'll never go back to rough, leathery penis heads! There are also things that you can do with a foreskin that give the man and you a lot of pleasure that you simply can't do with men who are cut at all since they don't have a foreskin and do not get nearly as much pleasure from their penis as men with an intact foreskin do. As a woman, I have been with both cut and uncut men, and to be there is a difference. Natural men feel waaaaaay better. just sayin



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 ?

[jimdawg]

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. :) I've been with both, and I have to say I definitely prefer the uncircumcised penis. Comparing the two, the circumcised penis is almost leathery, whereas the uncircumcised penis in so silky soft and wonderful feeling. I'll admit, I had a bias at first, since I'm American and the vast majority of penises in my age range are circumcised, but given the choice, I'll never go back to rough, leathery penis heads! There are also things that you can do with a foreskin that give the man and you a lot of pleasure that you simply can't do with men who are cut at all since they don't have a foreskin and do not get nearly as much pleasure from their penis as men with an intact foreskin do. As a woman, I have been with both cut and uncut men, and to be there is a difference. Natural men feel waaaaaay better. just sayin

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.

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?

[Realist]

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!

[darkeyes]

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...

[jimdawg]

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.

[elian]

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.

[IanBorthwick]

Why don't you worry about your kids and let other people worry about theirs. Circumcision is not a harmful procedure. Nearly every American male of my generation is circumcised, including me.

Let's see if I can ingest this degrading self-hypnosis.....

Nope, my mind cannot tolerate this poor cooking. Back to the chef and have him shot.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

So much for not harmful.

On top of that it's done without anesthetic, the child is screaming and goes into shock! A kind that oft times leads to death days later, and is chalked up as IMS. Look, we get it, you're fine with your circumcision. We're not. I stood up against Female Genital Mutilation, and in boys, VASTLY more pervasive int he world, I have to stand against it too. It's been pushed into Africa recently as a chance to reduce AIDS, which it is not and demonstrably has been shown to not be. All in the name of getting the raw material for Oprah's goddam favorite wrinkle cream. Yes, folks...women's wrinkle cream that Oprah gave away needs MORE raw materials.

My boys are not on the market for this, and I stand in FULL agreement with ANYONE who wants to abolish this.

Using religion as an excuse to mutilate ANYONE is simply wicked, inexcusable, and seeking the solace to continue your voodoo, witch-doctor, mumbo jumbo in a poor innocent.

If you want them sliced,let them reach the age of maturity and if they say,"Fuck you!" it's done. Religion is not an excuse to persecute us in the GLBT community, therefore it cannot be a reason to mutilate children, kill men or put women in a a position where she cannot get healthcare or ownership of their own reproductive rights. As an MRA, I stand for all rights that do not impinge on others...and by GOD, slicing children is impinging on a baby's rights to grow up unscarred!

[pepperjack]

Let's see if I can ingest this degrading self-hypnosis.....

Nope, my mind cannot tolerate this poor cooking. Back to the chef and have him shot.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

So much for not harmful.

On top of that it's done without anesthetic, the child is screaming and goes into shock! A kind that oft times leads to death days later, and is chalked up as IMS. Look, we get it, you're fine with your circumcision. We're not. I stood up against Female Genital Mutilation, and in boys, VASTLY more pervasive int he world, I have to stand against it too. It's been pushed into Africa recently as a chance to reduce AIDS, which it is not and demonstrably has been shown to not be. All in the name of getting the raw material for Oprah's goddam favorite wrinkle cream. Yes, folks...women's wrinkle cream that Oprah gave away needs MORE raw materials.

My boys are not on the market for this, and I stand in FULL agreement with ANYONE who wants to abolish this.

Using religion as an excuse to mutilate ANYONE is simply wicked, inexcusable, and seeking the solace to continue your voodoo, witch-doctor, mumbo jumbo in a poor innocent.

If you want them sliced,let them reach the age of maturity and if they say,"Fuck you!" it's done. Religion is not an excuse to persecute us in the GLBT community, therefore it cannot be a reason to mutilate children, kill men or put women in a a position where she cannot get healthcare or ownership of their own reproductive rights. As an MRA, I stand for all rights that do not impinge on others...and by GOD, slicing children is impinging on a baby's rights to grow up unscarred!


Belongs in the same primitive context of infant baptism.

[jimdawg]

The issue is racist if you look at the history of the issue. I'm far less interested in the personal freedom part than the racism issue. I'm extremely understanding of the belief that its mutilation and that's not the problem. The problem goes back to the anti-Hellenic revolt over 2000 years ago: Greeks, after invading the Persian Empire, had a nasty problem of quelling revolts in Judea. Their solution? Ban Jewish slaughter, ban circumcision.

As a result of this, moderate Jews (such as myself [I'm an atheist, but I'm culturally highly influenced by Judaism]) ended up being enemy number one due to the fact we were willing to go along with the Greek movement. Worse, it set Judaism backwards in many ways-to this day, it is discussed and its hard for me to eat pork in my own house.

There are countless examples of this whole argument littered throughout history, and they all end the same way. Revolt, war, expulsion. Not just of Jews, but of Muslims too. And then you have the counter-revolutionaries amongst the Muslims historically, where they'd kidnap Christians and circumcise them and turn them into soldiers. That's by no means better. One needs to look at examples of banning circumcision like the Spanish Inquisition and expulsion. Of course, the final result of this militant Christiandom was a severe depopulation of Spain and the destruction of the economy. And the Jews mostly fled Russia (where most of them as adults got circumcisions since it was now available).

So when I say racist, I mean it in this way: 1. Your religion doesn't matter. 2. Only insane people practice your religion. 3. Only members of this minority race practice it 4. The minority race is insane.

Its the concept of Life unworthy life and all that other jazz. A blanket ban on circumcision isn't just a ban on personal liberty-anyone familiar with the religions know that its an outright ban on religion. To ask someone to circumcise themselves when they have less capacity to regenerate and nearly no capacity to not be effected by it is absurd. But that's effectively what people are doing. They're saying that any member of this minority-in this particular instance, Muslim, has no capacity to raise children humanely.

And that's racism.

It requires understanding the point of view of a religious minority. Mind you you might be in one. In America, most people don't really study racism along those lines. But again, I make this case.

European Socialists (not social democrats) are almost always:

1. Atheists
2. Anti-Religious
3. Anti-Israel (Israel and Zionists as racists)
4. Anti-Halal and Kosher slaughter
5. Highly critical of Muslim countries when Israel isn't involved (Muslim treatment of women in particular but also Shiara law without any sort of understanding of it)

I have never found an activist from Europe who was a (non-democratic) socialist who believed that there was any value in halal meat, and there are of course lawsuits in Europe all the time trying to get halal meat kicked out of places for being cruel to animals (going out and shooting an animal in socialist paradises like Sweden, however, defend the culture AND control the population). As an outsider, these things appear highly racist. Although again I'm an atheist, in my view, I would have more freedom with Christian fundamentalists than this brand of atheism, which severely limits my choice.

Now of course, there are many reasons to be against circumcision. Perhaps you don't like to see babies cry (by this standard, giving birth might be considered cruelty, but that's not a point). Perhaps you don't like to watch an operation. Perhaps you really are concerned about the welfare of children beyond the fact you don't think parents have a right to raise them with the religion of the choice of the parent. When you support a ban in such shrill language without understanding how it is that there are so few Jews or Muslims in Europe until recent Muslim immigrations, your lack of sensitivity to the history of your own country in relationship with the country of the immigrants is frightening. Bans aren't the answer. Removing the reason for the circumcision is. One also has to look at America in this paradigm which might explain the "conservatism" of this country: We absorbed millions of Europeans fleeing what their governments were doing. A hostile attitude towards Christianity? You can still be Christian in America. Pogroms? Jews were allowed to be Jewish without Pogroms in America. Circumcision? Can do that too. Unlike Europe, you can get citizenship which was pretty much enshrined in our constitution and be a member of the society. Its not just a Christian-Jewish issue. Whatever happened to all those Muslims that lived in Poland before World War Two? Oh, if you don't know about them, that's ok.

Its not that Europe is going to even go on a genocidal quest again. That was an extreme minority with an extremely apathetic majority who seemed to not understand that people could do that sort of thing. However, this stirs up really bad memories to other people. Its even scarier when you consider the social reforms in Europe of the 1920s and contrast them to the social reforms of the 1930s. Progress and liberalism can turn on a dime, and people can be highly sensitive to these sort of things. At best, its extreme cultural insensitivity to do this in such a way.

It should be of note that on the far right and racism argument, outside of the US, whites are almost never circumcised. That alone makes the issue very prone to racist rhetoric, even if people don't notice, on both sides. I'm certainly guilty of it when I think that white people really should be lecturing us on how civilized we are. But aside from Jews, if you look who circumcises, almost no one who does is considered European. And if you look up the nature of the term anti-Semitism, it defines the Jews as inherently not Europeans (that's the point: Semitism versus Aryanism).

That fact people can't understand also how this whole debate over minarets, slaughter, circumcision and dictatorships/Israel smells of racism to some people (it smells of vicious Islamophobia, and European white people tend not to be Muslim unless Iranian)...that's a major, major issue.

Also, excepting the Danish People's Party and the British National Party, its not clear to me what the difference on these issues between the Socialists Activists and the neo-Nazis are (and only those parties because they're hardcore supporters of Israel because they have the racist attitude that Israel is great for killing Muslims). Have you read their rhetoric? Its the exact same. To a minority, could it seem like Nazis have inserted this stuff into the mainstream? I would say...absolutely. Something else to strongly consider. I don't see anything wrong with Mosques being built in Switzerland. If someone's really for peace, justice and equality, why should socialists vote for it (and many did)?


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.

I would say, if liberty really mattered and the issue wasn't racist, people would be absolutely screaming about Belarus, and would be demonstrating against Russia setting the clock backwards. But it seems that no one really cares about that little North Korea in the heart of Europe, and people don't want to complain that the presidential term is now six years as opposed to four in Russia.

[IanBorthwick]

Belongs in the same primitive context of infant baptism.

I'd classify it considerably more deeply disturbing than a well meaning blessing, personally. No one gets hurt with a dash of water and some prayers. This is surgery without anesthetic we're talking about....mutilation without consent or with deep coercion.

Honestly, two people walking toward your baby.... one with a bottle of spring water and the other a scalpel, I'm mugging the guy with the knife and watching Mr H2O.

[jimdawg]

I'd classify it considerably more deeply disturbing than a well meaning blessing, personally. No one gets hurt with a dash of water and some prayers. This is surgery without anesthetic we're talking about....mutilation without consent or with deep coercion.

Honestly, two people walking toward your baby.... one with a bottle of spring water and the other a scalpel, I'm mugging the guy with the knife and watching Mr H2O.

And this is the kind of admission that reflects a very white/European attitude that deeply troubles people without a Christian background. Christianity is superior to Islam/Judaism. Thus, you can tolerate Christianity. Thus, you can support a holy war. This isn't just another slippery slope argument. Its happened dozens of times in history, and even in the last 25 years with the fall of the USSR. I'm not disputing what's worse. But I do see it disturbing that people don't understand why this can irk people and why people like me will defend the practice of it being legal.

[darkeyes]

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.Circumcision in anglo-saxon societies is essentially a Victorian development by which the practice of male masturbation could be restricted.. it was quite short lived in the UK and never was universally accepted, and began to be less used in the 1940s...u do not feel mutilated because ur culture doesn't consider it mutilation.. yet that is exactly what it is, and outside of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the UK, it is a rarely employed practice today...... I have no objection whatever to circumcision.. if the person elects for the procedure to be done when old enough, aware enough and informed properly about it.. his decision.. no one elses..

Jim, I care not one jot whether a person is black, white, yellow or a very bright shade of purple.. neither do I care whether he is Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Sikh or Jane, athiest or agnostic.. ethnic origin or religion mean nothing to me when it comes to the rights of the child.. what does is that the children of all peoples, all religions grow up happy and understanding each other.. and that issues concerning their body, other than issues which are of pressing medical need, are left to them to decide upon when they are mature enough to take a properly informed decision.. their decision.. no one elses.. it is not a race issue.. it is a human issue and one for too long which has been allowed to continue..

..the fact that the Islamic world still practices circumcision is important but that does not mean that we should not attempt to influence them away from it.. most of the world does not practice circumcision and while I understand the rleigious and cultural traditions of those that do, in mmy view it is a wrong still, and simply because a relligion practices something does not make that religion right...many religious practices have been discontinued over centuries... and will be again..

Is it an imposition on a religion or culture? In a sense... but if a culture or religion is confident enough in itself they will survive such an imposition. Some children do not survive what is after all imposition upon their bodies... the main question is.. is it right to so impose upon an infant or a young child?

Cultures and religions do change over time.. often because of external imposition on practices they have employed for centuries.. sutee for instance...much more drastic, but equally the Hindu of the 19th century took exception to its outlawing by the British and many did not burn on the funeral pyre voluntarily ..many in fact were but infants and children themselves and it still occurs to some degree today, but in nowhere near the numbers of a century and a half ago.. also the practice of castrating young boys in the Ottoman and other Empires and other countries around the world.. it still goes on in parts of the world but would we wish Turkey to return to the days when thousands of young boys were so mutilated?? practices of human sacrifice in south and central America for rligous reasons.. hardly allowing free will to stand and no-one seriously would approve a return to the practices of Maya, Aztec or Inca...and even today, female circumcision, which at last seems to be on the wane.. far more serious than that of the male, but by disapproving and trying to eradicate it and accepting it for what it is.. a brutal cultural imposition on the rights of young girls... do our attempts at imposing its eradication make us racist? Or do we not owe out of common humanity, that all of these and other historical impositions upon the rights of human beings to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies not supercedes religious and cultural practices that have no place in our societies.. and indeed in other societies?

Nothing of what I say is racist.. nor is it religiously intolerant... it is intolerant of the removal of free will from millions of human beings who are allowed no say in in what happens to a part or all of their bodies. It may impose upon the rights of parents over their children.. but that I argue, when it comes to removing body parts of a child without his (or her) informed consent is an imposition and a right a parent should not have... save as I have always said, at times of pressing medical need..

If we accept the principle of freedom of choice, and that human beings have free will with which to determine their own future.. we can easily be accused of hypocrisy by keeping from millions of young boys the right to decide what happens to their own penises... a little thing u may think but a huge principle... parents can and probably will still influence a child as parents do, should they feel circumcision is best for their children.. but we don't own our children, and when a boy is old and mature enough, other influences should be allowed into his life to enable him to take that decision for himself.. it should be his decision.. no one elses...it is his body, and if we believe in a human being's right to determine his own destiny.. that is how it should be.. no matter his religion or culture...

[jimdawg]

Supporting a ban without going after the cause of the act is deeply insensitive and bordering on racism and no different than what Nazis say Fran. I understand your point. You just don't understand mine. You won't cure the "disease" this way-you'll only make it go into back alleys with more deaths, and more outrage. Economic development, political stability and enlightenment is the only solution.

You're right, its not inherently racist, nor is it inherently intolerant, but it is again highly ignorant of the history of this part of the world. I strongly advise you actually read more about European actions and-more importantly-European arguments. And then ask yourself how the ARGUMENTS have changed (sans mention of god) in the last 1400 years as well as the ideas of the solution. Also familiarize yourself with the Hadiths that mandate this and the Torah more and the political conditions around the time they were written (you're an atheist so you surely believe things were written by people of their time and not without some sort of earthly purpose I assume). Again, I see racism, but ignorant insensitivity generally looks the same. This isn't even an argument about being politically correct-this ban will have tremendous consequences, none of them peaceful, some of them dangerous, unless all parties involved have really changed that much in the last 2000 years (I submit, they haven't).

Deleted this line. Reread what you said.

You're right when to compare it to human sacrifice. But that's not the point. I'm strongly of the belief that the ban will be ineffective. And remember, human sacrifice in the new world was only ended after a program of massive genocide. Similarly, circumcision in Europe was dead in 1948. You really should analyze what you're advocating.

[darkeyes]

Supporting a ban without going after the cause of the act is deeply insensitive and bordering on racism and no different than what Nazis say Fran. I understand your point. You just don't understand mine. You won't cure the "disease" this way-you'll only make it go into back alleys with more deaths, and more outrage. Economic development, political stability and enlightenment is the only solution.

You're right, its not inherently racist, nor is it inherently intolerant, but it is again highly ignorant of the history of this part of the world. I strongly advise you actually read more about European actions and-more importantly-European arguments. And then ask yourself how the ARGUMENTS have changed (sans mention of god) in the last 1400 years as well as the ideas of the solution. Also familiarize yourself with the Hadiths that mandate this and the Torah more and the political conditions around the time they were written (you're an atheist so you surely believe things were written by people of their time and not without some sort of earthly purpose I assume). Again, I see racism, but ignorant insensitivity generally looks the same. This isn't even an argument about being politically correct-this ban will have tremendous consequences, none of them peaceful, some of them dangerous, unless all parties involved have really changed that much in the last 2000 years (I submit, they haven't).

One other thing: You say the fact that the Muslim world practices it doesn't mean you should intervene. This leaves an interesting solution for people in the UK who want a circumcision: Let them go home. Do you see how I find this racist now?

You're right when to compare it to human sacrifice. But that's not the point. I'm strongly of the belief that the ban will be ineffective. And remember, human sacrifice in the new world was only ended after a program of massive genocide. Similarly, circumcision in Europe was dead in 1948. You really should analyze what you're advocating.
I am an athiest.. and a humanist.. and I have no objection whatsoever on stepping on the toes of religious practice where this offends my humanity.. I hope that the day comes when a similar decision to that of Germany happens in the UK.. I may not think we should physically intervene by imposing on all of Islamic society our beliefs and morality, but do think that where those who are Islamic live in a part of the world which is of a different culture and history they should be and are subject to the law and practices of that place.. sometimes accusations of racism can be made because of things our societies unreasonably expect of non indigenous cultures and peoples... but some things are too important for us not to insist upon within our own societies.. the removal of children's body parts without their informed consent is one such.. but that our societies must make accommodation with those other peoples of other cultures who live within our societies is an essential part of the obligation of our societies to both make them fee welcome and recognise that our society is changing and must recognise their rights to retain most of their own culture and cultural traditions.. it cannot be simply a one way street all in our favour.. it is unreasonable to expect that to be the case...

..but also as we do now.. we also have a duty to try and shift the opinions of those societies and cultures elsewhere to act more in line with our own on some issues.. circumcision is one... they attempt it with us on some issues and that is their right and I have no objection to that whatsoever.. dialogue is so important, but sometimes when dialogue fails... where we can, we do what we must within our own country's borders.. but even when dialogue with other nations and cultures does fail.. we still have a duty to continue to convince.. and the attempt and the dialogue is a form of intervention...

[jimdawg]

Aside from missing the point again, I'm not debating the try and shift, as much as the hard ban...although your not physically intervene statement should very much correspond if anti-war with my deleted line, its remarkable in the idea that using state power is by its nature physical intervention in the lives of the subjects. It is advocating physical intervention. I'm not necessarily opposed to that if warranted.

In any event, it is racist, because you are calling for an end of a behavior practiced religiously by a very large group of people. Its tough to find a definition of ethnic cleansing of which this doesn't fit. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide in the style of the Spanish Inquisition. I think the resurgence also of the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates the massive failing of this type of policy in Russia in the long run. Feel free to disagree with history if you desire. Secular humanism only sticks when someone arrives there by choice, or when you remove the people already there who reject it. Subsequently, Judaism is dead in Europe, and Islam is dead in most of Europe, aside from Turkey, Albania and the former Yugoslavia, except with the recent immigrant waves.

This isn't a question of being a one way street. Aside from again, the serious intolerance that statement implies, that you're merely tolerating guests in your society as opposed to citizens, it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, which is definitely not free, and in my opinion, the wrong answer as history demonstrated time and time again. When you're purposely choosing the wrong answer by acknowledging you're stepping on toes, you're basically announcing "I'm better than them" and that's not sufficient. Again, try and shift the opinions...but to what end? What's the punishment? If its a felony, that's jail time, that's physical intervention. If its breaking up the family, that might be worse for the rights of the child than a circumcision. So I'm sort of curious what reasonable answer you have aside from wishing Islam disappear, which if not racial genocide, is certainly cultural genocide. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic and again, not different from the standpoint of BNP.

In the end such a position has no real meaning to minorities. Its the kind of behavior that seriously makes me consider circumcising my potential children and deferring the question of breaking the tradition to them. I am circumcised, I'm fully functional, and I am quite good at sex, thank you very much and I don't see a big problem with it aside from choice and rights-almost all people with circumcised penises in the US would tell you it really isn't a big deal and telling us what we are missing has no meaning since we can't actually imagine the difference. But to me, the highest order of a society should be to prevent the destruction of a society and avoid war. If you're a pacifist, stepping on toes should not happen unless its necessary, and clearly, there's an eagerness on this issue which isn't thought out on how to actually stop it aside from throw people in jail (German example), breaking up families, and what not. It doesn't acknowledge how to cause a paradigm shift aside from general entrenchment.

Last of all, finding another reason to condemn immigrants will probably lead to a general worsening of their economic situation-usually bad for bringing about secular humanism-and in the end probably be worse for the rights of the child and isn't the child's decision. But that doesn't matter compared to a piece of skin that should be there and is taken off because of a tradition, right?

[MelissaPDX]

The issue is racist No it isn't, you're being a professional victim. People who are against circumcision or genital mutilation of infant boys can be Jewish and Muslim and still deeply faithful and into practicing those religions but they are just against genital mutilation that is practiced in their religion and it's not necessary to mutilate your kid's genitals in order to make them Jewish or Muslim. If you actually cared about any male sons you had you wouldn't mutilate their genitals at all. Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost. noharmm.org/separated.htm

[jimdawg]

No it isn't, you're being a professional victim. People who are against circumcision or genital mutilation of infant boys can be Jewish and Muslim and still deeply faithful

Stop right there and find me these people.

I don't think you understand the argument against it from someone of that culture. You end the practice when the need for the practice ends. When people demand you stop doing it, you do it more, since they are effectively demanding you convert to their morality. If you combine this with how circumcisers were regularly killed/exiled from certain countries...then you run into an issue, yes, it is racist.

You can call it horrible mutilation all you like. Female circumcision is very rare inside of Europe. Do you know why? Because there's little reason for it in Europe socially. If you understood the reasons for female circumcision where it occurs, you'd see that a lot of people don't like it and would agree its mutilation and do it anywhere. And you can't compare a late in life circumcision in my opinion to one early in life. In all cases those individuals seem to NOT be able to enjoy sex as much as people who were circumcised early in life.

That's not the point. You know what the point is? You don't understand religion and trying to impose your beliefs on people who have their religion despite YOUR beliefs. They'll adopt the correct practices when they decide its not necessary to. Deciding a mark of difference is mutilation only increases the need for it. Also, it should be of note that when circumcision was somewhat outlawed in Judea, Jews responded by doing foreskin restoration techniques to move back to their homes. So rabbis started deeper circumcisions that were much more painful and prevented correct development so this didn't occur. You have to understand the historical basis of bans on this: They don't work unless you commit genocide, and almost always have really bad side effects. Failure to understand that means you don't actually care about the welfare of the people you claim to be protecting. Which makes the argument at least dubious. Its again like the ending of human sacrifice in the Americas was done by a policy of extreme extermination.

I'm defending myself as a circumcised man-I like my penis. If you dislike my penis, don't have sex with me. But the practice is best understood as a mark of independence and a mark of your tribe. I don't see why you can't understand that some things are more important to other people than YOUR morality. And remember, if you take away the right of my people to be my people through the traditions that caused us to leave Europe (and I would add, the part of my family that stayed behind was murdered by people morally opposed to circumcision...) then you are completely ignorant of why there are Jews in America for starters. The only way to get rid of the act is to make the act unnecessary. Bans make it necessary. Thus...you spread the practice. Congrats.

And if you cared about my male sons, you wouldn't tell them their parent was horrible and that they should be taken away and placed with a family with no bond to them aside from the state's condemnation and support of "better" people.

And sexuality without a foreskin isn't necessarily normal or necessarily good, like seeing without color. But it is sufficient, and if you disagree, you're wrong. Period. Why are you wrong? Simple: If it was less than sufficient, there wouldn't be generations of people doing this thousands of years-and furthermore, it would show an extreme indication of mental disorder in such a group (and to indicate this, which isn't grounded on any reality I've seen, is acutely racist, so I doubt you want to go down that road). The same actually does apply to female circumcision if you want to go that route. But you know, if you're neutered...here's the thing, I don't think neutering is a good practice at all and I'm glad its illegal, but people who tend to be neutered tend not to care about the same things to nearly the same intensity. If you are so fixated on a piece of skin for sexual pleasure, it makes me wonder just how limited of an understanding of male sexuality you actually have. Sure it might enhance, help, or make sex pleasurable on a whole new level. But there's a lot more to life than the foreskin. I know that's not a very good argument, and I'm not really arguing with you on the negatives of circumcision aside from stop telling me I'm defective. But it is to say that your shrillness is completely unjustified. And I would add, very few circumcised men seem to actually care. You seem to be completely glossing over that point. Saying how great some people says it is compared doesn't actually seem to mean we're unhappy with our lives. In fact, I would add, making men worry about penile dysfunction isn't a good idea. How many women (and men) wonder why men are so fixated on our penises? I'll ask-why are you so fixated on my penis? Why do you want me to feel deficient? To agree with your ban on a practice you don't actually understand? And maybe have mental problems while I'm at it? Hmm...seems you don't have my best interests in mind.

[MelissaPDX]

Stop right there and find me these people. Google Jews against circumcision. As others have written in this topic there are Jews who are not for genital mutilation of their children and yet they are still Jewish and so are their sons who they allowed to remain intact with a foreskin.

[MelissaPDX]

How do you prevent an infant from practicing a religion that he doesn't even have the cognitive capacity to comprehend, pray tell? What you're really talking about is the "right" of superstitious parents to practice THEIR religion on the helpless body of their child and mutilating his genitals -- just like those religious nuts who refuse to provide their sick children with lifesaving medical care. religious reasons aren't good enough to justify cutting off any part of your infant's body. Mutilating any child's genitals without his or her consent is a heinous act. Mutilating a child due to the parent's religious beliefs has been correctly determined in Germany to be a criminal act. ---There are forms of female circumcision that "only" remove a minor part of the clitoris. Since this practice is extremely widespread in Indonesia, it is furthermore one of the most common forms of female circumcision. Still not OK. And wouldn't be even if the jews thought it awesome and Germany tried to outlaw it. No one is repressing anyone. It is about time the tables were turned on those who would surgically alter and mutilate another human being's genitals just for superstition or because they want to impose their religion onto their children. They should have more respect for the children here and now.

[darkeyes]

Aside from missing the point again, I'm not debating the try and shift, as much as the hard ban...although your not physically intervene statement should very much correspond if anti-war with my deleted line, its remarkable in the idea that using state power is by its nature physical intervention in the lives of the subjects. It is advocating physical intervention. I'm not necessarily opposed to that if warranted.

In any event, it is racist, because you are calling for an end of a behavior practiced religiously by a very large group of people. Its tough to find a definition of ethnic cleansing of which this doesn't fit. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide in the style of the Spanish Inquisition. I think the resurgence also of the Russian Orthodox Church demonstrates the massive failing of this type of policy in Russia in the long run. Feel free to disagree with history if you desire. Secular humanism only sticks when someone arrives there by choice, or when you remove the people already there who reject it. Subsequently, Judaism is dead in Europe, and Islam is dead in most of Europe, aside from Turkey, Albania and the former Yugoslavia, except with the recent immigrant waves.

This isn't a question of being a one way street. Aside from again, the serious intolerance that statement implies, that you're merely tolerating guests in your society as opposed to citizens, it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, which is definitely not free, and in my opinion, the wrong answer as history demonstrated time and time again. When you're purposely choosing the wrong answer by acknowledging you're stepping on toes, you're basically announcing "I'm better than them" and that's not sufficient. Again, try and shift the opinions...but to what end? What's the punishment? If its a felony, that's jail time, that's physical intervention. If its breaking up the family, that might be worse for the rights of the child than a circumcision. So I'm sort of curious what reasonable answer you have aside from wishing Islam disappear, which if not racial genocide, is certainly cultural genocide. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic and again, not different from the standpoint of BNP.

In the end such a position has no real meaning to minorities. Its the kind of behavior that seriously makes me consider circumcising my potential children and deferring the question of breaking the tradition to them. I am circumcised, I'm fully functional, and I am quite good at sex, thank you very much and I don't see a big problem with it aside from choice and rights-almost all people with circumcised penises in the US would tell you it really isn't a big deal and telling us what we are missing has no meaning since we can't actually imagine the difference. But to me, the highest order of a society should be to prevent the destruction of a society and avoid war. If you're a pacifist, stepping on toes should not happen unless its necessary, and clearly, there's an eagerness on this issue which isn't thought out on how to actually stop it aside from throw people in jail (German example), breaking up families, and what not. It doesn't acknowledge how to cause a paradigm shift aside from general entrenchment.

Last of all, finding another reason to condemn immigrants will probably lead to a general worsening of their economic situation-usually bad for bringing about secular humanism-and in the end probably be worse for the rights of the child and isn't the child's decision. But that doesn't matter compared to a piece of skin that should be there and is taken off because of a tradition, right?
I am a pacifist Jim.. not one who qualifies her pacifism.. but an absolute pacifist.. there are no circumstances in which I will ever support war or any kind of violence. Neither do I support country because it is my country against others or my ethnic group against those who are not of mine because it is my ethnic group.. king and country right or wrong is not my way...every decision I take is taken for reasons of humanity.. what are we to do? Allow practices to occur simply because they are the practices of another country, or religion or ethnic group no matter how heinous? A wrong is a wrong no matter who commits it.. what we call race, religion or nation bears no relation to why I speak and argue as I do.. my humanity dictates what I believe, how I argue and what I say... I admit I am, like everyone a product of the culture in which I was raised and many of my attitudes and beliefs reflect that cultural tradition.. but I am not and never have been slavish to that tradition and never shall be... I have an independence of mind which comes from what I see around me and what I learn of the world.

To talk of Islam being dead in Europe is to know nothing of Europe.. the last 50 years has seen Muslims immigrate in very large number and they have added immensely to the richness of european culture.. in Germany there are some 10 million, France 3 million and over a million and a half in the UK and large numbers are to be found in other countries of the EU as well as some non Eu states.. it is estimated that there are over 50 million in Europe excluding European Turkey representing over 7% of the population... hardly a dead religion is it? neither is Judaism dead.. it may not have the numbers of once yet it lives on hale and hearty with over 2 million living and making their way through life throughout Europe.. nothing like pre war levels for reasons we know all too well but hardly a dead religion..

For human beings to co-exist in harmony there must be some movement to accommodate each other's beliefs and ways as far as we are able.. mostly this can be done relatively easily, but occasionally one group or other will find it has to concede more ground than it desires or even surrender it completely on a few issues... let me be qite clear.. I do not simply tolerate the large scale immigration of Islamic people and others into Europe or to my own country.. I welcome it with open arms, and try as best I can to understand their ways and their traditions. I do not feel threatened by their arrival or the increase in their numbers and never have.. I am no "little Englander" and xenophobia/racism plays no part in my thinking however much u may wish to think otherwise.. I have fought xenophobia/racism all my life and shall till its end. But u must understand this... as I fight against the issues which I abhor within my own culture including the xenophobia of many, I can do no other when I see things I abhor within others...

.. on the question of sex, Jim.. i don't care about whether it is better for a man to be circumcised or not.. the enjoyment of fucking is not important.. the rights of the child and of human beings to elect or not to be circumcised is...

My pacifism and humanity tell me one thing.. do no harm.. I consider circumcision as doing harm.. children die because of circumcision and infant circumcision since it is the removal of part of a child's body and he has no say whatever in the matter.. it is an abrogation of our obligation to the child by imposing a physical change in him and denying him the right to exercise his free will. it does not matter the religion in which he is to be raised if any, nor the colour of his skin... what is important is that in some indeterminate date.. about his own body, he is allowed the right to decide its future when informed enough and sufficiently mature to do so, as young girls should be in respect of "circumcision" of the female.. that transcends race or religion.. when we see what we believe to be a wrong we have an obligation to speak out and to work to eradicate that wrong.. it is irrelevant that the wrong in question is part of a cultural or religious tradition of people of a different tradition and belief to ourselves... if we waited until everyone thought the same way.. few injustices and few wrongs in this world would ever be righted... and about this injustice, in my opinion, based on my own core beliefs, there is but one solution.. to ban infant circumcision and allow the child the opportunity to decide his own destiny... and if that is racist... then I will happily plead guilty...

[jimdawg]

You can google Jews for Jesus too. Its an extremely small minority that isn't even one percent. You'll find tons of non-Jews/non-Muslims in the US for circumcision. I fail to see how this is relevant. Unless you mean to tell me the amount of people against circumcision is far fewer than the amount of people for it amongst these communities in the US.

I meant pre war, "Native" Islam, Fran. That was murdered out. I'm not referring to modern immigrants since WWII. Perhaps I should define this another way: Ethnically European Muslims. They're insanely few of those that actually exist today outside of what, three countries? (Turkey, which is mostly Asia, Albania and Bosnia)...in fact, that's I suppose my problem with your opinion. Please explain to me how it differs morally or philosophically IN ANY WAY from the BNP. Now look, that's not to say Nazis can't coop a good idea. But if you look at the origin of the issue, in almost ALL places in Europe, the first ones to complain about the practice were ALWAYS the most racist. A mutation due to a change of values in modern Europe is justifiable, but unless there is differentiation between the-what I will call-chauvanistic Atheists-and the Nazis, I do not believe anyone sympathetic to the minorities-in this case, those descended of Muslim immigrants, will be able to tell the difference.

If you want a modicum of support from me, you have to demonstrate sufficiently how you're not a member of BNP. And mind you, I know you're not a BNP supporter. But you haven't done that. Instead, I see a mirror image of the rhetoric instead of an explanation of how you'd actually keep the immigrants in Europe and get them to give up the practice beyond state power. If you still don't believe what I am saying, you're more than invited to research into a pan-European propaganda.

Furthermore, there is a direct conflict between ruling by diktat and pacifism. A person who believe that ruling under pressure of extreme force is not a pacifist no matter how many foreign invasions are not supported.

[darkeyes]

You can google Jews for Jesus too. Its an extremely small minority that isn't even one percent. You'll find tons of non-Jews/non-Muslims in the US for circumcision. I fail to see how this is relevant. Unless you mean to tell me the amount of people against circumcision is far fewer than the amount of people for it amongst these communities in the US.
It isn't relevant jim, ur right.. except as an interesting aside that not all within those communities are pro circumcision...what is relevant is the rightness or otherwise of the practice, ..... I'm so often in a minority it doesn't worry me.. just means working harder to convince the majority..and we will never convince all..

[jimdawg]

Yes but I meant a real statistical amount. Its true though that its evidence of a lack of rights. But also, one could say that because you have groups such as Neurti Karta, it means real Jews don't support the state of Israel. Of course, that's complete bull. They're an extremist fringe with a political agenda, in particular, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem of Jews that weren't there before them (because they think they're allowed to be in Israel, but no one else).

I want statistics on how many Jews are actually against the practice aside from organized interests that have no statistical support in reality.

Being a political minority is very different than being an actual minority. A sense of persecution on this issue is very similar to, again, what people in the BNP complain about. If you want to really be a minority, go to a country like Egypt and practice your beliefs. OK, that's not attractive economically nor is it outrageously safe at this time. I guess...Saudi Arabia...no...Pakistan...no...either way, you have the option of complete and utter conformity. You just don't want to practice that (nor should you). Someone who's of a different ethnic and religious background does NOT have that option.

And if you wonder why the suspicion? Look, you say you're a socialist, and we both know that means sympathy for the left leaning anti-US position in the Cold War. That doesn't mean pro-Soviet, but it doesn't mean opposition to the nonsense that came out of there. As far as how socialists could be racist, one needs look no further than a topic called "Zionology"-militant anti-Zionism no different than anti-Semitism, which, because ethnic Jews sometimes were involved, was claimed by being less racist than Zionism. Hogwash. Almost all supporters of a Palestinian National State can understand that this stream of propaganda IS extreme racism, and does not help their interests one jot. And when people who are Jews see these types of things, to them, it becomes indistinguishable from the far right. This is why sensitivity matters. These are just a few historical examples. The list can go on and on. Find me one time in history people opposed circumcision to a legal ban and that this actually did not have an extreme, racist element. You simply can not do it. It hasn't existed. Differentiation and sensitivity is necessary here for credibility.

[darkeyes]

Yes but I meant a real statistical amount. Its true though that its evidence of a lack of rights. But also, one could say that because you have groups such as Neurti Karta, it means real Jews don't support the state of Israel. Of course, that's complete bull. They're an extremist fringe with a political agenda, in particular, the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem of Jews that weren't there before them (because they think they're allowed to be in Israel, but no one else).

I want statistics on how many Jews are actually against the practice aside from organized interests that have no statistical support in reality.

Being a political minority is very different than being an actual minority. A sense of persecution on this issue is very similar to, again, what people in the BNP complain about. If you want to really be a minority, go to a country like Egypt and practice your beliefs. OK, that's not attractive economically nor is it outrageously safe at this time. I guess...Saudi Arabia...no...Pakistan...no...either way, you have the option of complete and utter conformity. You just don't want to practice that (nor should you). Someone who's of a different ethnic and religious background does NOT have that option.

And if you wonder why the suspicion? Look, you say you're a socialist, and we both know that means sympathy for the left leaning anti-US position in the Cold War. That doesn't mean pro-Soviet, but it doesn't mean opposition to the nonsense that came out of there. As far as how socialists could be racist, one needs look no further than a topic called "Zionology"-militant anti-Zionism no different than anti-Semitism, which, because ethnic Jews sometimes were involved, was claimed by being less racist than Zionism. Hogwash. Almost all supporters of a Palestinian National State can understand that this stream of propaganda IS extreme racism, and does not help their interests one jot. And when people who are Jews see these types of things, to them, it becomes indistinguishable from the far right. This is why sensitivity matters. These are just a few historical examples. The list can go on and on. Find me one time in history people opposed circumcision to a legal ban and that this actually did not have an extreme, racist element. You simply can not do it. It hasn't existed. Differentiation and sensitivity is necessary here for credibility.One example? In my view.. the one which is the cause of this thread.. you may argue to the contrary but it is out of concern for the child the decision was taken not because of any racist ideology.. I don't care how many Jews or anyone else is against the practice.. on a human level I believe it is wrong and an infringement on the rights of the child... and for no other reason...

My quip about being a minority was not meant to illustrate anything other than the fact it is something I am used to.. I am not so far as I can ascertain oppressed because of it..but let me make another illustration.. many religions the world over are opposed to our rights to be who we are.. they are anti lgbt. simply because those who adhere to those religions they are different from us, and hold differing viewpoints, Do we not have a right to fight our corner for recognition equality and acceptance of our right to be? Is it racist to do so? is it racist to, as I do, oppose war in all corners of the earth simply because it is a war between peoples other than our own? Is it racist, Jim, to oppose the abduction and virtual enslavement of young children pressed into arms by governements or rebels because they are black, or Asian, or anything else? Is it racist to oppose the practice of slavery wherever it is found simply because they are ot European or North American? Is it anti Christian to oppose the Catholic Church teachings on contraception and abortion? is it racist to strive for our vision of the world, where people are truly free, truly equal, where all have the right to exercise free will, live in peace and harmony with both nature and our human neighbours, is free of want, oppression and share in the earth's bounty? is it racist Jim, to oppose something we believe to be wrong wherever we find it?

There are those who have entered western society in the last half century and more who have very different views to mine about the world.. i neither wish to oppress or to take away from them their core beliefs and values or to impose my own or those of the indigenous society.. already the society in which I live has come a long way to in evolving to take account of the change in population demographics.. no where near enough but it will continue.. both immigrant and native populations have changed in that time, and that too will continue.. we are learning to respect each other (although sometimes u wouldn't think it) and to live together, not without some real problems and occasional upheavals but it is happening.. and that too will continue.. the true effects of the immigration of many different peoples, religions and cultures into my country will not be seen for a century and more and it will be with hindsight we will see just how successful we are in integrating and learning to adapt to each other. immigrants and those of all cultures and religions have a right to try and change society just as do we who are its indigenous population.. they live here too and have, or should have precisely the same rights as we...

I am a passionate believer in multi culturalism and the exchange in ideas between people.. but as those of different cultures strive for what they believe, please allow me the right to strive for what I believe.. I do not believe that their attempts to change my country is inherently racist in the least.. that some are, too many, is true.. but equally many, far too many native people of my own country are also racist and will argue an issue from a racist perspective.. an issue is not necessarily racist.. how an argument is employed may be.. I am no conservative.. I do not believe in defending the indefensible in my own society.. it doesn't matter where in society the indefensible exists, or inequality or injustice or among which sector of the population... I believe in and am happy to see my country change. the status quo is not an option for therein lies stagnation and ultimate demise.. change has to come and both immigrant and native populations have to change and they will change over decades as they have changed over decades and more.. most change will be by consent, and most change will occur without us noticing... I don't fear it.. I welcome it.. but some things must change in both indigenous and immigrant populations which will be not to the liking of one or t'other..sometimes both..mostly it will be through compromise, but occasionally there will be an issue, in this instance, infant and child circumcision, where no compromise is possible and something has to give...

Jim, u can argue all u like about the political dimension.. and the historical, and even the religious and cultural..I argue from the human, and argue that as I would like to be treated, so will I treat another... not u will note.. that as another treats me, so will I treat him...

We all have beliefs and it is right that we all express those beliefs and have the right so to do...but in expressing and arguing for the things we believe in, this is not necessarily racist.. on the issue of infant circumcision as I have conceded, some will argue with a racist motive.. but the principle is not racist, and neither is my motives for so arguing.. and neither may I add, do I think for one moment that the huge majority of people who argue against the circumcision of infants and young children is either.. but let's be clear about this.. while I concede that there are racists who argue against infant circumcision, there are those who argue otherwise who are equally as racist, and racist arguments can be made when debating that point of view also... but just as I believe that most on my side are not arguing from a racist perspective, neither do I believe it of those who are on the other side of the fence..

I argue for what I believe to be right.. my motive is solely concern for the child and his right to choose.. the rights of the child which I believe is far more important than trivial squabbles about race, culture, religion or a lack of it...

[jimdawg]

One example? In my view.. the one which is the cause of this thread.. you may argue to the contrary but it is out of concern for the child the decision was taken not because of any racist ideology.. I don't care how many Jews or anyone else is against the practice.. on a human level I believe it is wrong and an infringement on the rights of the child... and for no other reason...

My quip about being a minority was not meant to illustrate anything other than the fact it is something I am used to.. I am not so far as I can ascertain oppressed because of it..but let me make another illustration.. many religions the world over are opposed to our rights to be who we are.. they are anti lgbt. simply because those who adhere to those religions they are different from us, and hold differing viewpoints, Do we not have a right to fight our corner for recognition equality and acceptance of our right to be? Is it racist to do so? is it racist to, as I do, oppose war in all corners of the earth simply because it is a war between peoples other than our own? Is it racist, Jim, to oppose the abduction and virtual enslavement of young children pressed into arms by governements or rebels because they are black, or Asian, or anything else? Is it racist to oppose the practice of slavery wherever it is found simply because they are ot European or North American? Is it anti Christian to oppose the Catholic Church teachings on contraception and abortion? is it racist to strive for our vision of the world, where people are truly free, truly equal, where all have the right to exercise free will, live in peace and harmony with both nature and our human neighbours, is free of want, oppression and share in the earth's bounty? is it racist Jim, to oppose something we believe to be wrong wherever we find it?


To focus on one area of problems and not concentrate on others, yes, I would argue that's quite racist. I mean yes, you have to pick and choose, but cherry picking along a socialist narrative is indeed, again, racist, due to the fact that they only seem to care to go against perceived "imperialist" interests. Very few socialists actually complained-still don't-about conditions in Qaddafi's Libya or Assad's Syria. Yet they complain to the wazoo about Israel. Maybe also Saudi Arabia. Pakistan. But...you know, you can leave out talking about the USSR, except in the new stream which since its collapse has gone towards the fourth international, Trotskyist line. Whatever. When talking about Israeli occupation of Palestine, but not the fact Jordan is ruled by a royal family and populace that also are occupiers by definition, to the very real former occupation of Lebanon, to the expulsions of Germans from Eastern (not Central-DDR Germany) Germany, the moving of the Polish border...you just end up with a lot of stories about occupation. Its funny that people claim a right of return for Palestinians in the 1948 borders, but not Germans in the 1948 borders. Of course, looking at it from a Jewish perspective, it looks like European arguments are conveniently anti-Israeli. That's not to say there isn't legitimate criticism as much as "Don't look at the stuff WE pull. Look how evil YOU are." Israel is still a power at war with what amounts to a civilian, disorganized population. That's an enormous problem. In the case of Europe, however, it seems that just "Banning" people is an acceptable answer-for them. Subsequently the USSR was allowed to fix the borders and no one on the left seems to care.

I would say it is racism thus to oppose the enslavement of black children without considering the enslavement of the Belarussian people. I would say that socialists world over in fact have glossed over obvious examples of enslavement in their own societies-Syria being a prime example leading today to a nasty religious insurrection. Simply put, all over the Arab world states that at some point sided with the USSR, particularly on matters of religion, are getting overthrown by religious zealots. Clearly attempts at banning religious practice have failed and the counter revolution will be something that really comes to be painful when people actually wake up and see what the religious conservatives coming to power stand for and how they're fundamentally different than religious conservatives even 25 years ago.

You have a right to strive for what you believe. Just as I have a right to tell you, what you believe is inconsistent with what you believe. If you believe that people who have a circumcision have been brainwashed into not hating it (That isn't you but others), then in my opinion, you have a view of a child's rights that contracts the will of the vast majority of such children. If this isn't true, and this is what I mean how to point to people, please provide (I mean this seriously) a poll indicating that a substantial percentage of Muslims or Jews (including non-practicing) are opposed to circumcision. I don't think such a poll exists, but I would say that's a pretty democratic way of going about it that you can't argue with. However, I still don't see an end game here that doesn't result in expulsion: How do you deal with back-alley circumcisions? Do you break up families? Deport? Deprive of citizenship? Jail? Which is it? What is the mechanism of enforcement? I see NO answers on an actual solution as much as a wish to demonize people as criminals because you think an act is criminal. Justice has two parts-first, the crime. Second-the punishment. Avoiding the second part, including its consequences, is just a matter of wishing the problem away. Driving a problem under ground however is very good for people pretending its not there-that is until some deranged lunatic decides to blow something up. Then the entire country looks back in shock, while certain political interests attempt to blame it on some FOREIGN policy gone awry.

If you genuinely care about the HUMAN, as far as how people would like to be treated, you need to analyze the historical, religious and cultural views. Failure to do this will not result in any actual solution to the problem. Again, the solution lay in enlightenment and economic achievement, and at times, targeted pressures that don't result in reactionary attitudes. You're absolutely right, the principle isn't racist. However, the shrillness of the presentation means it is not a jot different than the racist attitudes of the Soviets towards Jews, or the Spanish inquisition towards the same, or the propaganda of the extreme right against Muslims. A lack of sensitivity on this matter shows an indifference that, again, I see as acutely racist. Just because you say you're not "one of them" doesn't mean we can tell the difference and it is incredibly important. Considering the VERY BAD HISTORY surrounding these activities towards Jews and Muslims, you need to create a sense of differentiation, no, we're not actually racist, and here's our plan, which doesn't involve (cultural) genocide. People calling for a blanket ban never actually do that. If the practice goes away, there's nothing to complain about. However, if the practice goes away without free will, that means religious thought is suppressed-when an insane terrorist blows something up and says Islam is under attack, or even an insane "Christian" like Breivik, you just tend to make people take them more seriously-like they might have some sort of point that should be listened to. If nothing else, you should be again addressing the root causes, giving people a reason to be peaceful, which includes I think by your definition not cutting off a piece of skin that every male is born with. I fail to see where the peace is, or the road to it to an action that is by its very nature not peaceful on either side. In any event, such a ban criminalizes Islam as currently practiced without any alternatives or reform in the religion. That can not reasonably be argued and is the nasty point everyone refuses to acknowledge.

I also would compare it to Israeli policy in this regard: The louder the Europeans moan about the evil Zionists, the more the Israelis believe they're right in what they're doing and that Europe doesn't understand what its saying and trying to impose its view on the conflict without being there. Blaming Israel (or the Palestinians) and deciding to "Ban" Israel (or Palestine) in such a regard just won't work if the regime expects it. I would point to Cuba, North Korea, Syria (which is collapsing from a domestic crisis that might be sparked by international forces), Belarus, Iran...embargoes against these countries has never actually worked and simply makes the regime in question even MORE powerful and more extreme. And I would argue, the same thing has happened with Israel and Pakistan-attacks on those lands and threats have not made these sides any more willing to argue, but rather more willing to develop their nuclear program, which they won't give up unless they trust you. The disorderly collapse of some of the communist dictators in Eastern Europe also only entrenched the current ones in their beliefs that their only retirement plan is torture and death. Think about peaceful transitions of power under such a scenario. North Korea has an insanely powerful army for its GDP and a ton of nukes. Do you really think they'll go down as peacefully as East Germany if they collapse even from interior pressures?

[BiDaveDtown]

Its not that Europe is going to even go on a genocidal quest again. Yes, because protecting a minors' and infants' bodily and genital integrity is totally like the Spanish inquisition, the Spanish colonization of Mexico, the holocaust or other types of genocide. :rolleyes: The cold HARD fact is that it also entails risks and medical (not to mention sexual) disadvantages. A recent example: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6122a2.htm?s_cid=mm6122a2_w The practice is clearly barbaric, genital mutilation, and unecessary. Quite the contrary, the earlobe and the labia are each a single layer or piece/flap of skin tissue but the foreskin is not; it is a folded-over sleeve of two distinct layers of tissue unattached to each other accept at the frenar band and of which only the outer FS surface is true “skin”. The inner FS lining is a mucosal membrane similar to the underside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth and thus is not at all like the earlobe or labia. The tip of the FS, the frenar band, is analogous to the lips. Most of the nerve endings associated with sex are concentrated there. Preputialectomy (i.e., amputation of the foreskin, commonly called circumcision) removes these and is analogous to clitoridectomy. Imagine living with amputated lips! Circumcision reduces a man to a sexual cripple. After circumcision as a mature adult, few men would argue against that statement once they realize that an important component to their sexual satisfaction has been removed. Sexual relief never again reaches its former peak. The pre-eminent twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, plainly states that the intended purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male libido. Although the Torah is clear that circumcision is a religious requirement for Jewish males, the Qur’an does not mention it. Muhammad is believed to have been born without a foreskin [In medicine, aposthia is considered a birth defect.]. Circumcision is a non medically necessary surgical operation performed without consent. I understand many Jewish people, especially the orthodox will consider this ruling anti-Semitic, but I believe that it is purely a decision that will better the Jewish people. There are groups who advocate for Brit Shalom, a non cutting ritual ceremony for those parents who would rather let their child choose to be circumcised when they can make their own decision. Your right to religious freedom does not extend to amputating parts of other people's bodies and mutilating a boy's genitals.

[jimdawg]

Yes, because protecting a minors' and infants' bodily and genital integrity is totally like the Spanish inquisition, the Spanish colonization of Mexico, the holocaust or other types of genocide. :rolleyes: The cold HARD fact is that it also entails risks and medical (not to mention sexual) disadvantages. A recent example: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6122a2.htm?s_cid=mm6122a2_w The practice is clearly barbaric, genital mutilation, and unecessary. Quite the contrary, the earlobe and the labia are each a single layer or piece/flap of skin tissue but the foreskin is not; it is a folded-over sleeve of two distinct layers of tissue unattached to each other accept at the frenar band and of which only the outer FS surface is true “skin”. The inner FS lining is a mucosal membrane similar to the underside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth and thus is not at all like the earlobe or labia. The tip of the FS, the frenar band, is analogous to the lips. Most of the nerve endings associated with sex are concentrated there. Preputialectomy (i.e., amputation of the foreskin, commonly called circumcision) removes these and is analogous to clitoridectomy. Imagine living with amputated lips! Circumcision reduces a man to a sexual cripple. After circumcision as a mature adult, few men would argue against that statement once they realize that an important component to their sexual satisfaction has been removed. Sexual relief never again reaches its former peak. The pre-eminent twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, Moses Maimonides, plainly states that the intended purpose of circumcision is to weaken the male libido. Although the Torah is clear that circumcision is a religious requirement for Jewish males, the Qur’an does not mention it. Muhammad is believed to have been born without a foreskin [In medicine, aposthia is considered a birth defect.]. Circumcision is a non medically necessary surgical operation performed without consent. I understand many Jewish people, especially the orthodox will consider this ruling anti-Semitic, but I believe that it is purely a decision that will better the Jewish people. There are groups who advocate for Brit Shalom, a non cutting ritual ceremony for those parents who would rather let their child choose to be circumcised when they can make their own decision. Your right to religious freedom does not extend to amputating parts of other people's bodies and mutilating a boy's genitals.

Actually, historically, the Spanish ban on circumcision did just that. No doors in houses, a priest overlooking you, deferring to a politically correct church body for everything...the cold hard fact is that did indeed happen and it had disasterous consequences for Spain and Latin America. Meanwhile the Jews and Muslims who were exiled still practice circumcision. You really need to read more on the position of the church. They really thought that protecting a body given by god from people who would take away from god's religion was important. It wasn't a matter of sexual health but natural law to them. Practicing Judaism in general was seen as evil and this was a key measure. Ever notice that a bunch of Arab style dishes in Spain have pork? Ever wonder why? Tell me, forcing people to eat this food...how does that advance human rights? It doesn't advance animal rights...but that's another argument. So you're not advocating forcing people's options to eat (you're not Mike Bloomberg, I suppose...). But still, how can you protect people in their own homes? Are you going to pull down people's pants to look at them? Really, do you think that a complete invasion of privacy-the only way to enforce this while making it a much less hygenic practice-do you think that's good for human rights?

If the decision will benefit the Jewish people, they have to come to it themselves or be wiped out by others who think that killing them, epelling them or throwing them in jail actually helps them. That's simply the only way history has ever gone. There is no actual known alternative here on this issue. No matter how much you hate circumcision, this is always the end game. Or the ban gets thrown out with extreme pressure in the other direction-a more extreme want to circumcise.

As far as Islam, its mentioned in the Hadiths, which carry an enormous religious weight. Its like saying Jews only believe in the Torah. Not true.

[BiDaveDtown]

Jim Dawg why do you keep going on and on about Spanish history, the crusades, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all. Cutting up an infant's penis is barbaric. It is mutilation. It is unnecessary and removes an important, useful, sexually stimulating piece of flesh. It is done at the behest of the parents for *their* welfare, not the child's. It's not sane or reasonable to use the justifications of 'religious freedom', or 'tradition - we've always done it'. The only two countries pushing all the ''medical benefits'' propaganda are Israel and the USA. When the USA is involved the motive is usually $$ fewer doctors in the U.S. are recommending it than ever. It's only America, Israel, Islamic countries, South Korea and some aboriginal tribes in Australia. Canada is gradually moving away from it. The rest of the world doesn't do it. One is not born a Jew or a Muslim but a human being. The correct response should be, “Shouldn’t the child be afforded his own religious rights? As well as genital integrity?”

[darkeyes]

Your entire argument can be encapsulated as this, Jim... that because a culture, ethnic group or religion has certain beliefs and practices, these practices are untouchable by we who are not of that culture, ethnic group or religion, and we must allow them carte blanche to continue doing whatever it is no matter how barbaric or heinous these practices are. Which means of course they have no right to utter a word or attempt to influence ours... and those practices, however barbaric and heinous they may be, must be allowed to continue even in our society without bar, and ours, in their societies similarly. To do other is therefore racist? What tripe... we have no right to cajole, bully or intimidate,and certainly not war, but we do have the right to try and influence by force of argument.. to a discuss, debate and attempt to have other societies discontinue practices which we believe to be morally wrong.. and they have precisely the same right to try and have us change our ways.. and in our own societies we, all of us including those we call immigrants, have the right to proscribe any practice which is felt by society as a whole to be heinous or barbaric by any sector and all sectors in our society...

We have historically generally exchanged ideas between cultures... even more so than now, it is when that exchange ceases that real problems begin... circumcision of infants and children is not only a practice, it is an idea, as the wish of those of us who wish it to be discontinued is an idea.. the principle of free will and control over the destiny of one's own body is an idea... what u propose does not eliminate racism.. quite the contrary.. for as the exchange of ideas between cultures dries up, we ensure greater suspicion and a greater likelihood of racism on both sides through isolation than if we continue dialogue and argument on ideas...

Racist ideas do exist, I won't argue with that.. but the idea of discontinuing or banning the practice of infant and child circumcision is not one however much u and others wish to muddy the waters by claiming it is...

[jimdawg]

Yes, you're right BiDaveDtown. Stop talking about when this historically happened, history has nothing to do with the whole thing! Out of curiosity, how does cutting up a child's penis help a parent's welfare? Just curious about that.

And again, if you actually look at religious practice, here's the argument you are making: Should you choose to be Muslim or Jewish, you only have the right to do that after it'll be of a scarring memory.

You seem to be arguing with me that this is a barbaric practice. I'm not arguing that beyond that I'm quite fine, thank you very much. What I am arguing is the place in history this argument has. A hard ban historically has meant ethnic cleansing. Clearly the child has more of a right to genital integrity than its biological parents...I'm not quite sure how you could argue this. Also I would like to add that pogroms as well as attempted bans on circumcision are the reason my family made it to the United States. Had we stayed in the places where the Soviets banned circumcision, we would've probably been murdered by people who thought Jewish tradition was unnatural and cruel, or become refusniks if we survived. You are saying that us minorities should trust you, even though the tone of your arguments on this matter are as shrill as theirs were throughout all those times. You don't seem to get it.

Talking about Spanish history, the crusades and Russian history is the topic and how people can in fact really really be scared of people like you who are basically tolerating Christianity, Atheism and neo-Paganism over Islam in particular.

I would also compare a circumcision by your arguments to getting braces. That's a procedure done for cosmetic reason that can really mess up the mouth, result in cavities as its harder to clean, teeth getting pulled, and all sorts of barbarism. Braces almost always go on children before they're old enough to consent legally. Braces hurt. Tell me, should braces be banned until you are 18 when they serve no actual medical use beyond ease of cleaning? And furthermore, you do realize that if you get braces older, its much harder to deal with them, painful, etc...tell me, if it were a religious mandate to have straight teeth, would you then oppose people getting braces?

OK, comparing it to braces is silly and absurd. Legally-what's the difference? Do you know? I don't. To me its the same concept, aside from you are far more obsessed with penises than teeth, so much that the teeth issue looks pointless to think about.

Let's also compare the tone of this argument to religious people fighting abortion. To them, its murder. Have you looked at their propaganda with fetuses? I'd say...its pretty convincing. There are very few health benefits to an abortion outside of when the fetus presents a health hazard. And furthermore, you don't give the fetus a choice. You don't see any irony in the idea of choice, that it is the mother's choice whether or not she wants to abort the fetus, but not in any way her choice on how to raise the child? I'd rather have my foreskin gone than be aborted.

OK, false argument here. Personally, I'm for abortion. But I'm not for hypocrisy, and this issue and the shrillness smells of it. You have passion-good, fine. You have morality, good, fine. You lack contextual understanding. That's not fine. Opposition to circumcision is certainly justified. However, citing studies done by people with anti-circumcision agendas is generally not going to sway me, though I do accept that circumcision probably isn't healthy. I could right now go and look through a lot of research that says circumcision has plenty of benefits, especially along the issue of STDs. But research IN FAVOR of circumcision for health reasons apparently has less credibility-since it obviously has an American or Israeli bias-than research against it, because, heck, those white people who do the research (South Africa, Canada, Europe) just matter more. And again, that misses the point on how all this SEEMS racist. White people = correct. Brown people = incorrect. Yellow people = neutral, red people = neutral. Am I reading this wrong?

And of course the rest of the world doesn't do it. Its generally a local custom that happened to be adopted by tribes that have been notoriously hard to conquer and control. And again, what has happened to these people when people have tried to conquer them? I see Korea with a very strong tradition of repelling foreigners. Israel, you can look at the many revolts by the Judeans against your civilization bearing Greeks and Romans. Today the Israelis have trouble putting down an Arab revolt as well. Of the countries you listed where its practiced, none have been easy to conquer. The US has never lost a defensive war.

Context matters. Being anti-circumcision isn't racist in itself. Being Islamophobic/anti-Semitically anti-circumcision and having a double standard for the intolerances of Christianity on the secular culture (American secularists are far more anti the celebrating of Christmas than Europeans in my experience, where Christmas is accepted as a holiday everyone celebrates...no one in America has ever asked me why I don't celebrate Christmas but every Christmas I always am asked-even by people who know I'm somewhat Jewish-why I'm not with my family like its a big deal and how horrible it is) smells of it. If you were from a religiously persecuted minority, you really wouldn't think "They're picking on us again?"

I can-and keep-going on and on about this same point. You simply don't understand that over a billion people are SCARED of people like you far more than they disagree with this practice. How does being afraid of you help convince that billion people they're wrong? Please give me this answer.


Jim Dawg why do you keep going on and on about Spanish history, the crusades, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at all. Cutting up an infant's penis is barbaric. It is mutilation. It is unnecessary and removes an important, useful, sexually stimulating piece of flesh. It is done at the behest of the parents for *their* welfare, not the child's. It's not sane or reasonable to use the justifications of 'religious freedom', or 'tradition - we've always done it'. The only two countries pushing all the ''medical benefits'' propaganda are Israel and the USA. When the USA is involved the motive is usually $$ fewer doctors in the U.S. are recommending it than ever. It's only America, Israel, Islamic countries, South Korea and some aboriginal tribes in Australia. Canada is gradually moving away from it. The rest of the world doesn't do it. One is not born a Jew or a Muslim but a human being. The correct response should be, “Shouldn’t the child be afforded his own religious rights? As well as genital integrity?”

[jimdawg]

Your entire argument can be encapsulated as this, Jim... that because a culture, ethnic group or religion has certain beliefs and practices, these practices are untouchable by we who are not of that culture, ethnic group or religion, and we must allow them carte blanche to continue doing whatever it is no matter how barbaric or heinous these practices are. Which means of course they have no right to utter a word or attempt to influence ours... and those practices, however barbaric and heinous they may be, must be allowed to continue even in our society without bar, and ours, in their societies similarly. To do other is therefore racist? What tripe... we have no right to cajole, bully or intimidate,and certainly not war, but we do have the right to try and influence by force o argument.. to adiscuss, debate and attempt to have other societies discontinue practices which we believe to be morally wrong.. and they have precisely the same right to try and have us change our ways...

NO! It is, using the tactics of genocidal maniacs and their language is NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THAT GROUP. And they don't have the same right to force YOU to get a circumcision is the point. No, no, no. Going on an Islamic crusade against the "House of War" (Europe) is NOT acceptable.

There is a HUGE difference between discontinuing and banning the practice. The waters aren't necessarily muddied by you, but what people have done for GENERATIONS using the same arguments that you have done. You refuse to say how you're different in any single capacity. That's because you have no actual plan for defeating a "social problem" beyond state power. And the fact people still circumcise I think is evidence that bullying is an absolute failure, and the places where it has worked to end circumcision have seen massive amounts of GENOCIDE.

This is a fact. You can deny it as much as you wish. You are saying that your belief in genital integrity is more important than human life. It is not a muddied scenario unless you turn a blind eye to human nature and behavior countless time and time again. Because people LIKE YOU tried to liberate my "people" 2300 years ago, I STILL can't eat pork in my parents house, and we STILL get circumcisions. The scar of genocide and forcing people to give up their religion by a bunch of tyrants who basically stole our land and resources is that strong. Without such scars, there would be no Islam and no Christianity. Judaism would've probably assimilated, like almost every other culture conquered by the Romans. But something very strange happened in that part of the world. And you seem to be sidestepping what actually happened. Banning circumcision only makes sense if you believe in a Christian god under such rubric, because God wills it, and that was the whole concept of Jesus coming back according to Paul...from an atheist perspective, it is illogical due to the fact it fails to ask why men started the practice in the first place and why they continue to practice it. Religion isn't a good enough answer-a lot of atheists of Muslim and Jewish descent still do this practice. There is obviously something else there. And THAT is what you have to go after if you genuinely are interested in ending this practice.

What's wrong with studying it? Afraid you might get tolerance towards it to the extent of liking it? Afraid that it'll shatter your beliefs? Honestly, I study something, and I generally understand better how to overcome what blocks me. Its a matter of learning how to express yourself, build confidence, and not scaring us religious minorities that we're evil and you're coming to interfere with our lives, throw us in prison, take our babies away, exile us from your lands and kill us.

Take a movie like http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/08/10/2740422/on-a-warsaw-ghetto-film-an-unwitting-collaboration. Give it the treatment of "The Eternal Jew" and then look at the wedding scene, and the circumcision scene. What do you think this was? An attempt to show Jews as normal? Or "Look how barbaric their customs are! Look what they do to children!"

But what do I know? I'd only have been exterminated.

[elian]

Well I am a firm believer in the fact that most wars start at least 10 or 20 years before the first shot is ever fired.

[IanBorthwick]

And this is the kind of admission that reflects a very white/European attitude that deeply troubles people without a Christian background. Christianity is superior to Islam/Judaism. Thus, you can tolerate Christianity. Thus, you can support a holy war. This isn't just another slippery slope argument. Its happened dozens of times in history, and even in the last 25 years with the fall of the USSR. I'm not disputing what's worse. But I do see it disturbing that people don't understand why this can irk people and why people like me will defend the practice of it being legal.

Before you jump down my throat, Jimdawg, you need to go back and read my posts and drop an apology my way. Taking me out of context does not make you look bright OR informed. Not to mention the fact that you are railing against those who would stop the practice in a fashion that would be considered Civilized. The blather you threw at Darkeyes was, is and will always be, Libertarian rhetoric with no basis or foundation in anything more than what you accuse others of doing. Social change comes from raising awareness and passing laws against actions deemed barbaric. Has been throughout time and will always be that way, thus the term Progressive was born.

When you have something more cogent to share than your own blame casting, let me know.

[darkeyes]

Jim, I would appreciate not being spoken to as a brain dead little bimbo... I may not share your beliefs and may not entirely understand Islam or Judaism.. since I have no religious belief and never have had, such belief is something I will never quite grasp entirely. but am not entirely ignorant of history, nor am I entirely ignorant of oppression not simply of "your people", but of others around the world and in my own country also.

I know of holocausts and destruction of the beliefs of people, of contempt shown, and of genocide and I'm sorry if u believe that I am being contemptuous of what u say.. but I begin from a different place in a different land and from a very different point of view. My humanity, and belief in the right of human beings to live in peace, undisturbed by neighbours, and left to live unoppressed and to exercise the free will which is their right, and to do no harm to any other, outweighs any rellgious or historical considerations.. out of respect for you and your beliefs and what u have said I have taken a great deal of time to explain my own point of view and my own beliefs. Part of my belief, is the right of a human being to make decisions about his or her life and to use the free will which is all of our right to determine their own future, not have it removed from them by any other and a part of that is the right of a new born or young child to determine the fate of his or her body. His or her right... not the right of parent, guardian or the state or religious priest because of what happened long in the distant and also I accept the more recent past... or even for the much trumpeted and highly debatable medical precautionary reasons.

I can accept 99% and more of the ways of religions and other cultures and peoples without even thinking about it.. and I will defend their right to be with every fibre of my being and the things they believe... but when a people, culture or religion for whatever reason takes it upon itself to make a fundamental irreversible decision on the physicality of other human beings, there I draw the line. Yes I would prefer that they discontinued practices which involve removing from people free will by inflicting upon them medical procedures which alter their natural state without the permission.. the informed permission of the person or persons involved... but every year, thousands of infants and children are so altered.. some.. fewer boys than girls I admit die, and others have physical and sexual problems because of circumcision which last all of their lives. and if it cannot be discontinued voluntarily in our own societies, then what other option is their? It is not that I am genitally fixated as seem to think.. I do not believe in harming any human being, and we have to remember circumcision, like any medical procedure is not without risk. The decision is the person whose body is affected to make.. no one else in my view has that right, save in times of medical need. That, if u like, is a tenet of faith of mine and goes as deep within me as any that you or any other has and u dismiss that belief as almost of no importance.. worse.. u dismiss the right of a child to be unmolested and to be allowed to exercise his or her free will as of little import in the name of what was once and of faith.

My country is riven with division and has many paranoias.. religious, national, class, race... these I do know about and can speak with real knowledge and authority because these paranoias are our history, and don't think that our history was not one of oppression.. in just Scotland alone, we too had our own diaspora.. the scattering to the four winds of a whole people.. half the population of the country of one ethnic group. And far more recently than that of your own. We too had our own near holocaust.. maybe not death camps, but a huge slaughter followed by oppression, starvation, eviction and transportation and the near extermination of a people, their language and culture, and if I may say so, for a century and more, their religion. So I know of the things u speak in some small way, but I do not let them poison my heart or mind as so many Scots do. I have sadness about it, shame too, for I am a lowlander,and lowlanders allowed it to happen and many were roped in to make it happen, some were directly responsible and not a few benefited from that clearance and near disappearance of a race of people..

..but I also have within me the blood of those people who were so cruelly treated and abused.. My paternal grandmother was the daughter of a Gael and so I feel anger too, but in the time passed since the Gaelic diaspora began and ended, I see no point in being bitter, condemning those responsible blindly and allowing my mind to be twisted by the injustice of it all. I spend much of my life trying to stop Scots people from being bitter about the past and to channel their energies to the future. Of course we should learn from such times, and we do.. but sometimes we learn the wrong lessons.. and sometimes we retain the wrong symbols to remember our past... but whatever symbols we retain.. none should involve removing free will from a child and allowing him or her no say in what happens to his or her body.

Personally... if a physical symbol is required, I would have thought it more appropriate and meaningful if people elected for themselves with real knowledge to have their bodies changed physically.. but what the hell do I know.. I'm just a gentile female, an atheist and one who treasures human life and the rights of people to live in peace, unmolested and to be allowed the right to exercise their free will and determine their own kismet more than any ideology or faith...

We differ in our view of the world, Jim, about the things we believe, I suspect what lessons we should learn from history, even our interpretation of history, and certainly the place of free will and the rights of the child in our world and how best to deal with a particular problem.. I could continue the debate ad infinitum but it would serve no useful purpose except to make u even more agitated and angry, possibly even more bitter than u seem to be right now... so I leave the last word with u for I have no doubt that you will have much to say.. you know my feelings, but please treat me with a little more respect than u did with the last post..

[jarhead]

Or maybe they DID take a big lesson from Nazi Germany...that human rights are universal and must be vigorously defended, especially when it involves the most defenseless among us, the infants and children. Since it's already technically illegal for anyone to cut off healthy body parts from someone who can't consent, even one's own child, the German court has decided to apply the law equally to all citizens. To argue otherwise is to say that some people deserve special rights that others do not, as in: "This act would normally be illegal for anyone else to do, but we're going to give you the special right to ignore the law because of your religion." Okay, I think I got it now: if you're African, African Muslim, or Asian Muslim and you want your daughter's genitalia removed, you're crazy. If you're American, or if you are Jewish or Muslim and want to do it to your son it's an esteemed religious tradition, perfectly OK, and you've got your head in the sand that it's genital mutilation even though the infant boy can't consent to it at all and there's no need for circumcision of boys or girls at all. Actually most countries that do not practice male or female circumcision at all have not seen massive amounts of genocide at all that is with the exception of China, the former USSR and all of its countries, various south American countries, Cuba, and Cambodia. However all of this is a moot point and the idea that banning genital mutilation of infant boys and girls will make genocide happen or that it it's Anti-Semitic or akin to the crusades or Holocaust which is what you're arguing is completely laughable.

You anti-semitic asshole!

[IanBorthwick]

You anti-semitic asshole!

Love this response. Not respecting another religions DISRESPECT for someone makes you a hater. I see.

So if I started a religion where it was against the mores and tenets of my crafted belief system that all women must have their left boob removed and all men must have their ears and noses notched, then anyone who deemed my practice barbaric would be an asshole.

Or

If you are LGBT and you don't respect the person punching your to pieces and killing you for your differences, you're a hater.

Or

If you think they shouldn't be allowed to round people up by their differences, rob, rape, enslave, torture and murder them...you're the hater.

To quote a famous Vulcan:

There is no LOGIC to your logic.

Jarhead, if I were you, and gladly I can say that I am not, you need to spend some time in a critical thinking class and learn how to LEARN. It can only do you some good.

[darkeyes]

You anti-semitic asshole! I see u forgot to put ur brain in today. Bedside cabinet, middle drawer... slip it in and try again, this time with an argument not a thoughtless and baseless slur arising from your own prejudice..

[goldenfinger]

You anti-semitic asshole!

Makes you wonder why some people join this site only to abuse others, with only a few posts to his name what is he thinking???

[ExSailor]

A circumcision was performed on me when I was an infant and unable to consent, as seems to be the case with most American men who are my age. Had I had a choice, I would have remained intact. I think that it would be better if parents would allow their male children to remain uncircumcised until they are able to choose for themselves if they want to remain intact or not. I wish I was not cut though and if I had the choice I would have wanted to keep my foreskin. I remember the first time I had sex with a man that has a foreskin I was envious since he got pleasure from his foreskin and penis in ways that I did not. His penis was also a lot more sensitive than mine and I could do things like lick inside the foreskin or roll it back and forth across his cock head and this pleasured him immensely. I do not have a foreskin so I can't get any pleasure like that. I know men who stretched out the remaining skin but that's not the same as having an actual foreskin with nerve endings that have never been completely removed. When I was 19 I had sex with a Latino man who was not cut and he fucked me up the ass and it did not hurt and was pleasurable. I had gotten fucked by cut men before that and I found a cut penis to be dry and very painful when getting fucked-even with lube; but a cock with a foreskin feels so much better and is pleasurable. Insofar as the Jews and Muslims of Germany are concerned, they too should accept that their male children have a right to choose circumcision or not. Performing the act on a child totally removes his opportunity to choose whether or not he wants to conform to that aspect of his faith. Secondly Germany is not telling Jews or Muslims that they have to stop being those religions, can't practice Judaism or Islam, or must leave Germany or not emigrate to Germany. Germany is also not imitating tactics of the Crusades/holy wars, or acts of genocide throughout history including the holocaust. As it has been written before in this topic circumcision or the genital mutilation of infants and boys is not necessary to be Jewish or Muslim and there are Jews and Muslims who do not do this to their sons yet they are still Jewish or Muslim but they left their sons penises intact. Frankly, if God or the creator(s) didn't want men to have a foreskin, then why are we all born with one? If there is no evolutionary purpose to a foreskin, then why haven't we evolved to be born without one? If I had the opportunity to choose, I would have kept my foreskin and my genitals intact. Sadly, that choice was taken away from me. If we were 'made in God's image', why the hell do these religious activists mutilate God's work...?

[elian]

Hmm, I heard on the radio today that there is a group of folks trying to get men in Africa to become circumcised to prevent the spread of HIV.. I did a google search and it would seem that there are plenty of opinions both for and against the procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV

[jimdawg]

I've decided to delete my post. I've stayed away from this thread, I will continue to. I'm not apologizing to anyone about my views on this topic and no longer expanding on why. I think that there's too much insensitivity. Calling a ban "good" in a view of moral superiority combined with arguments about mutilation will do nothing but insult people like me and none of the people offended by my view of the rampant racism will ever understand that the problem is the shrillness of the supporters more than the morality of the issue, and the looseness with which people go after certain select people in a subconscious way that the arguer isn't even aware of.

But you lost most Americans, as well as Jews, Muslims, religious Christians and Africans, when you said "Mutilation" and made it about religion. If you can't understand that, you can't understand why there will always be opposition to such a ban. And thus, there's nothing to apologize for.

[ExSailor]

Hmm, I heard on the radio today that there is a group of folks trying to get men in Africa to become circumcised to prevent the spread of HIV.. I did a google search and it would seem that there are plenty of opinions both for and against the procedure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV no more excuses for religious nonsense. it's barbaric and an imposition one another. Healthier life, that's bullshit! It's come out that those studies in Africa were seriously flawed. "Brian Earp savages the studies purporting to show that male genital mutliation would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS in African countries:" http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/05/circumcision-spreads-aids.html Bad science, bad policy. Worth a read. Go deeper into the studies he cites and links to and it seems quite clear to me that this massive campaign to rid Africa of foreskins is likely to accelerate HIV transmission rather than slow it. Actually, the two studies conducted in Africa have been largely discredited. Similar studies in Australia and Europe did not find a reduction in HIV transmission. There are a number of reasons. The first is that after circumcision, African patients were asked to abstain from sex for a month, which obviously changed the exposure potential during the study. They were also encouraged to use condoms. The uncircumcised group were not given this advice. Clearly, the study was not well designed. In any case, no child should be sexually contracting HIV before they reach their teens; at which point, they should be able to decide for themselves whether they want the operation. Delaying it does not increase their risk. Consistent use of condoms reduces transmission to near zero and therefore male genital mutilation is pointless. Courts in the 'good ole USA' are beginning to examine this and other issues related to children. No one 'owns' their child and when it comes to subjecting them to harm the courts will side with the child. You may be glad about what was done to you, but the number of men learning how circumcision has harmed them is increasing and they're documenting it [www.circumcisionharm.org]. And really, you pro-circers gotta come up with better arguments than "I had a friend once who needed circumcision and it was painful." I needed my tonsils removed, and know friends who had to have an infected appendix or diseased teeth taken out, but I don't run around saying kids should have routine tonsillectomies, appendectomies or removal of their teeth. The practical reality is, the US, with its highest circumcision rate, by far, in the western world, has the highest rates of every common STD, including HPV and HIV, in the western world. That doesn’t say much for circumcision as a STD/HIV prophylactic. I happen to be HIV+ and all the American bisexual and gay men who are my age who were infected with HIV and have died from AIDS or complications due to being HIV+ were all cut since it was pretty much routine when we were born. The primary advantage to women and men, of the uncircumcised penis is the foreskin glide mechanism. There is far less friction and chaffing and thus need for lubricant. A secondary advantage is that uncircumcised men are far less likely to act “like a bull in a china shop.”

[ExSailor]

That's nice Jimdawg but the ban on circumcision is not racist or Anti-Semitic at all, and it has nothing to do with genocide despite what you want to pretend. A surgery that's too painful for men to bear should instead be imposed on babies? It was proven by Anand & Hickey in the mid-1980s that infants feel pain more acutely than adults, yet still today most doctors and religious circumcisers use ineffective or no anesthetic. BTW, all the world medical associations who have reviewed this issue have come to the same conclusion: infant circumcision is not medically indicated. Given that these medical professionals have not been convinced by the 'evidence and facts' you hold so dear, I guess they - like the children's and infant's rights campaigners you hold in contempt - are just like 'Repubs on Fox News'. Most Christians worldwide do not circumcise their infants and even in the United States the practice of male genital mutilation is greatly decreasing compared to what it was like when I was born. Circumcision is nothing more than a primitive act of sexual mutilation but then all three Abrahamic cults are primitive anyway. Males should decide for themselves if they want to be circumcised later in life, it isn't a medical necessity either unless there is a well founded case threatening the immediate life or health of a child. It's absolute b.s. to say that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV transmission if you look at global statistics, quite staggering. Has their been a drastic decline in transmission in the U.S? Of course not! It is beyond pathetic to see fellow bisexual men condone this brutal breach on the human rights of a newborn and even go so far as to label it "religious freedom".

[IanBorthwick]

I've decided to delete my post. I've stayed away from this thread, I will continue to. I'm not apologizing to anyone about my views on this topic and no longer expanding on why. I think that there's too much insensitivity. Calling a ban "good" in a view of moral superiority combined with arguments about mutilation will do nothing but insult people like me and none of the people offended by my view of the rampant racism will ever understand that the problem is the shrillness of the supporters more than the morality of the issue, and the looseness with which people go after certain select people in a subconscious way that the arguer isn't even aware of.

But you lost most Americans, as well as Jews, Muslims, religious Christians and Africans, when you said "Mutilation" and made it about religion. If you can't understand that, you can't understand why there will always be opposition to such a ban. And thus, there's nothing to apologize for.

This nonsense does not Alienate Americans, I am from California. So you don't speak for me. And you don't have to apologize, as no one here actually expects you to learn something new. That would, as Doctor Who said, would require a few specialized tools you lack; such as a teaspoon and an open mind.

If you will not listen to those of us here who have railed against this act, then I shall simply link part of a very ELOQUENT piece against this barbarism. Read it or not, I do not care. But for those of you interested, the link is here:

http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-question-of-circumcision-has-no.html

Now follows a copy and paste of Girl Writes What.

Why the Question of Circumcision Has No Place in the Voting Booth
It's called the tyranny of the majority. And when it comes to the rights of a disenfranchised class of people, the majority cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

When someone's basic human right to the healthy, functional body they were born with is being trampled, the ballot box is not the place to decide whether that person's rights matter.

The place to decide this matter is the same place where the ban on female genital mutilation was decided. If legislators do not have the courage to do what is right and what is constitutionally sound in the case of infant male circumcision, without the support of the majority of voters, then maybe it's time to sharpen the pitchforks.

This is indeed a question of religious freedom--the freedom of an infant to not have an irreversible religious ritual performed on him before he's even old enough to see in color, let alone choose to make a covenant with any god, whether Judaic or Islamic. Any argument in favor of circumcision on religious grounds is an argument against religious freedom, and in favor of being able to force a non-consenting, helpless human being to endure permanent, life altering and occasionally dangerous consequences simply by being born into a family which practices a certain religion.

If you need convincing, ask yourself whether we, as a society, would allow someone to force a man who was mentally incompetent to make a covenant with a god not of his conscious choosing--a god he was unaware of--by having part of his dick cut off. Would we? Really?

To be anti-circumcision is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic. It is simply to be in favor of all people's right to choose the religion they wish to practice. By circumcising an 8 day old infant, Jewish parents are denying their sons this choice--to make a covenant with god of their own free will. Of what value is our dedication to freedom of religion if we deny that very freedom to our society's most helpless members? Of what value is any covenant with any god, if that covenant is forcibly enacted upon a baby strapped to a table?

It has been largely accepted in progressive circles that a woman's body is her own, and therefore it is her right to choose abortion if that choice is right for her. Yet this choice--to do with one's body what is right for a person--is denied baby boys every single day all over the world, even here in the "progressive" west. It is denied in the name of religion. It is denied in the name of "preventive medicine". It is denied in the name of "customary practice". It is denied in the name of a lot of things that shouldn't hold a fucking candle to a human being's right to decide for himself what potentially life-threatening, irreversible, painful and unnecessary surgery ought to be performed on him.

We deny parents the "right" to inject botox into children. We deny them the "right" to give breast implants to pre-pubescent girls. We deny them the "right" to carve away pieces of their daughters in the name of custom and tradition. We do this to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, from decisions made by their parents without any consideration of the personhood of their own children. We do this even though it makes individuals and interest groups angry, because it is the right thing to do.

And yet we allow parents, religious or not, to carve away pieces of their sons. To make an involuntary covenant with god. To make bathing them easier. To "protect" them from rare medical conditions, or from a sexually transmitted disease that is both uncommon and easily preventable.

I can only think of one thing that makes infant male genital mutilation acceptable--so acceptable that it's been widely practiced by us western "progressives" for a hundred years, and has been blocked from the voting booth by its defenders--when female genital mutilation has been outlawed in the US since 1996, not even a decade after we, as a society, were made appallingly aware of the practice.

And that's that we're willing to protect our daughters from these atrocities, and yet we're all too happy to subject our sons to them. How disgustingly sexist is that?

[void()]

Way back in post #24, I asked what I thought a valid question. It remains unanswered.

That aside, read over a bunch of outright hate and felt compelled to speak up.




1. The only way to get rid of the act is to make the act unnecessary.

2. The reasoning is simple; if you're religious, its a good bet that your personal beliefs of God dictate your personal beliefs of country. If the country is against God, then you are against the country. This means you have to leave, or in more violent cases, start a war, or give up your beliefs. You're giving someone an unreasonable choice between a job and their culture, one that creates no lasting belief, unless you're willing to commit genocide ...

3. ... it implies that there is only one answer to a solution, ...

4. And as far as thinking its a one-way street on imposing your moral views on people who don't share them who aren't imposing them on you, this is pretty xenophobic ...

5. And shame on you for knowing how my family should live their lives better than my family.

6. I'm not saying circumcise everyone at all. I'm talking about religious freedom ...

7. 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. ... 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?

8. 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.



1. Such a gesture would require burden of disproving the existence of YHVW, or God, in order to nullify the pact with Him/Her/It. As one whom is inclined to believe empirical evidence, this seems wholly unfair and unreasonable. It seems this way because I a do not assert existence of any God/god/Goddess/Deity, therefore I'm under no obligation to disprove what I do not think exists. As one asserts a positive this obligates them to prove said positive. After all nothing proves nothing, but something must be to prove something.

Further, such a gesture also requires one taking a stance of absolutes. There are precious few absolutes in Life, the world/s. And taking one so, using it as means of self destruction, i.e. that ending the act requires 'genocide' no less, is unreasonable at best. You are trying to disarm any opponent prior to engaging in intellectual discussion via stipulation of being victimized. Sorry, your effort is in vain as there are in truth no opponents, save perhaps your ego.

2. I disagree wholly. I am for all practical purposes deemed an atheist in the U.S.. There are large populations of Christians, Jews, Islamist, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus whom also live here. I have no desire to leave the country based solely upon religious principles. I could be Taoist and still not desire leaving, any religion, you can pick one if you like, no desire to leave based on religion.

3. See number one above. Seems to me you're the only one suggesting a singular solution, and yes it seems to be genocide in one fashion or another in any case. Apologies, I do not want to be Jewish simply because I think Jews dress funny, even compared to Amish. I don't wear any hats except metaphorically.

4. Judaism is a rather ancient belief, one I highly doubt has escaped Fran's examination. Most universities from my understanding do require some form of history, comparative religious studies, Fran is educated quite well as she teaches. So, because of Judaism's ancient pretext and Fran's demonstratively open mind, xenophobia seems more your shoe than hers. You are after all invoking righteous genocide upon high, either to eliminate poor Jews or poor Gentiles. See what you are left when clinging to absolutes? Plenty of rope to hang yourself, huh?

And by the by, most whom have posted here are clearly expressing opinion. They are not seeking to convert you or anyone. The case in question, as far as I know, already decided, done, finis. Guess it is German law to protect those unable to protect themselves, seems rather honorable in my humble opinion. See? We can express opinions, thoughts here. No, we do not all need to agree. As I said, we have fleeting few absolutes. If we all agreed, wow, absolute bore.

5. Oh, are you not telling everyone here they should be Jews or die? It appears to me you're doing so via appealing to absolutes, which I can easily dismiss. Suppose my family did not 'know best', huh? We aren't Jews, how could we know best?

6. Absolutes, gee this refrain grows weary. Drop your attachment of absolutes, please? There may be light, but if there is, light never implies a correct or only path to itself. Light is for all, and so apparently is the darkness of the hate you espouse.

7. I have no hate for anyone except myself at times. Yes, working on loving me more. Forgiveness helps, and it's not wholly a Christian concept. No one has the market cornered upon forgiveness.

8. Finally, I can agree with you about this. It is why I'm not normally a vocal, or militant atheist. And I forgive you, love you and respect you for the person you are right now. When you wrote those other things, you were a different person, you're different again now. In seriousness, please do reconsider clinging to absolutes. No of us get to stay here long. Our time is too short to continually try making it shorter. Besides, after we're gone it won't matter, it's all the same.

9. void hugs pepper. "Told you it's not about any particular religion, unless you count love & hate."

Excuse me going to go slumber in air conditioning after being a week without and 100 degree (imperial) temps. Nitol.

[ExSailor]

The first time I saw a penis with a foreskin I was envious and thought to myself "So that's what a dick is supposed to look like! Shit I've had my penis butchered!"

[ExSailor]

Given the blood-curdling screaming of an infant during a circumcision, I see it a preventing cruelty against children. Agreed. Male circumcision of infants is genital mutilation, barbaric, and unethical. Full stop. It's also not necessary.

[gen11]

FINALLY -- something on which Gews and Muslims can agree !! Isn't it a wonderful world?

[elian]

Actually there was one other thing they agreed on. Both Jew and Muslims in France were outraged when a French politician suggested that in light of what we now know of scientific evidence perhaps they should consider stunning cows before live-killing them. The suggestion that they change their belief was enough to unify both groups in angry protest.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/15/148521433/in-france-politicians-make-halal-meat-a-campaign-issue

So the moral of the story must be there will always be angry people in the world?

..at least here all we talk about is chicken and waffle fries..

[darkeyes]

Chill ye snippers of little babba boys, our Angela is on the case and is to introduce legislation to overturn the ban in the autumn... soon mummies and daddies will once again be able to lop bits off their sons willy nilly and so u can all sit back and smile and be happy... our Ange is worried about being a laughing stock it seems.. personally would rather be that than thought of as one who imposes me own will on what a child is able to keep attached to his (or her) body...

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE86G11D20120717

[DuckiesDarling]

Chill ye snippers of little babba boys, our Angela is on the case and is to introduce legislation to overturn the ban in the autumn... soon mummies and daddies will once again be able to lop bits off their sons willy nilly and so u can all sit back and smile and be happy... our Ange is worried about being a laughing stock it seems.. personally would rather be that than thought of as one who imposes me own will on what a child is able to keep attached to his (or her) body...

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE86G11D20120717


Fran, spare me your diatribe. The quote from her was she didn't want her country to be the only country in the world to keep Jews from practicing their rituals. You don't like it, we get it, but it's not up to you or anyone else who wants equality to stomp on religion..equality isn't just for issues you think are important, it's for all things including religion.

[darkeyes]

Fran, spare me your diatribe. The quote from her was she didn't want her country to be the only country in the world to keep Jews from practicing their rituals. You don't like it, we get it, but it's not up to you or anyone else who wants equality to stomp on religion..equality isn't just for issues you think are important, it's for all things including religion.
Like many do not confuse my wish to have infant circumcision abolished and become but a bad memory with any wish to stomp on religious ritual or belief... some religious practices have always been somewhat dubious and we do not allow them in our societies... the Inquisition for instance, burning heretics at the stake for instance, or witches, or anyone for any reason... we do not allow in our societies the lopping off of hands as happens in some Islamic societies, or the burning of live widows on the pyres of their husbands.. or the practice of thugee far more extreme than circumcision certainly, but I think most can see my point.

Because something is a religious ritual or practice does not exempt that practice from scrutiny as to its rightness by those of other religions or none, and should it be felt that such ritual is inappropriate and wrong we have no right to legislate against such? I don't think so.. and it is not because of any wish to prevent people from practicing religion, You don't get away with tarring me with that brush however much u try. I have no objection whatsoever to any male being circumcised ,,, if he is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide for himself, or in the case of infants and children, when there is a pressing a valid medical requirement so to do..

..and let me ask you this.. is my belief in the rights of equality and the right to be of my own kind also stomping on religion? Because I do not believe homosexuality is a sin, is that also stomping on religion? When I argue that I and people like me am allowed to marry the person of my choice.. is that stomping on religion? When I argue as I do and have, that homosexual and bisexual people should be allowed entry into the priesthood, and that they should be able to rise through the ranks of that priesthood like any heterosexual person has the opportunity so to do.. is that stomping on religion? When I argue that Islamic people have the right to erect mosques in western countries, and that Christians should have the right to be able to erect and establish churches in places like Saudi Arabia.. is that stomping on religion?

When religion is wrong in our opinion, more usually religion as decided by those who run and practice religions, we have the right to say so and to argue accordingly, as those of a religious bent have the right to argue for themselves... we live in a free (supposedly) society where we have freedom of thought and speech... or do those freedoms not apply when we believe religions have got something wrong? We have abolished many barbaric religious rituals and practices in the west... not to stomp on religion but for was was seen and believed to be for the good of people, their freedom and the society in which they live... any religion which removes from a human being his (or her) right to decide the future of his or her own body deserves censure. Because something is religious, does not make it right any more than because something is secular makes it right neither does it make it wrong... but when we see what we believe to be a wrong wherever we see it, we have an obligation to say so and try and right that wrong.. religions and the religious do it all the time and tell people like me what a Godless and bad bunch we are.. I defend them that right as I defend my right to argue back.. or is it that being Godless, that I must be tarred bigot and deprived of freedoms that only the Godly have right to?

[ExSailor]

It's about time someone has taken a position on this nonsensical "religious" ritual, the 4skin must be in the spleen category, oh well ya don't need it? so cut it out/off What a crazy excuse to throw a party around the old fire, waving hand crafted spears etc. and hey we'll do it in honour of that idol we made yesterday afterall, sacrifice is sacrifice. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, uncut guys are a hell of a lot cleaner and most definitely more sensative, sensual. But that's all in another thread. Just my 5 Deutsch Marks worth!!! Well said! I agree!

[jem_is_bi]

This issue is totally toxic. See previous threads.
I am keeping my opinion to myself.

[Gearbox]

You just gave your opinion Jem.lol

[Brian]

13147Oh no.

Keep it civil everyone please, please, and pretty please (and yes, I have not always been the best leader by example on this topic, but I am reformed).

- Drew :paw:

[darkeyes]

13147Oh no.

Keep it civil everyone please, please, and pretty please (and yes, I have not always been the best leader by example on this topic, but I am reformed).

- Drew :paw:
I am always calm, always awesome, usually civil but alas quite unreformed Droosy Woosy... but am always suspicious wen certain peeps revive old threads. makes me wonder if they have the wherewithall 'tween the lug'oles 2 start a new 1...

..and wy, Jem, is the subject toxic? U saying it's 2 hot to touch and we shudn't discuss it? Don't intend to get involved again but no subject shud b considered taboo... awful thing fear of the hot topic... hot as in controversial, not hot as in hot... leads 2 suppression of human thought u kno... and however much we like or dislike something, we shud never suppress discussion and certainly never suppress human thought... although ther r many nice "freedom luffing" peeps who like 2 do just that... freedom of speech isn't bout freedom 2 discuss the things we like, approve of and r comfy wiv... is 'bout other peeps having the freedom 2 discuss and explore the zillions of things we don't like and make us uncomfy an' all... and peeps will get hot under the collar 'bout many such things.. is how human progress is made babes.. for gud or ill... and 1 persons gud is another's ill... an' vikki verki...:)

[jamieknyc]

Funny how liberals and leftists are such bigots when the subject is Moslems and Jews.

[darkeyes]

Funny how liberals and leftists are such bigots when the subject is Moslems and Jews.
So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey? How did we do away with the inquisition and witch burning, and how do we maintain laws which forbid lopping off of hands, stoning to death, arranged marriages... what appalling bigotry that we fight for the our rights as gay and bisexual people in the face of great pressure and opposition from Islam, from Judaism, from Catholicism and Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism et al to be allowed to be free and love who we will.. where is the much vaunted freedom of the individual when an infant child has no say in what happens to his body because religion, tradition and culture or parents say so? If there is bigotry, I think u apportion it to quite the wrong quarter...

[jamieknyc]

Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems.

[Velorex]

People need to mind their own damn business.

Don't you dare get your lil' daughter's ears pierced, you are mutilating her ears.

Don't feed your child a soda or a candy bar. Nutritionally they are horrible for them,and it's proven that soda depletes vitamins in the body.

Don't you dare mutilate your child's hair by getting it cut, without them being of age to consent to it.

Childhood obesity and diabetes is at an epidemic proportion, from bad diets and lack of exercise.

Circumcision is a time honored covenant for many, in fact, billions, and if you were to ask any of those guys, a very, very, small percentage would say that they were mutilated.

Get the point!?!!

People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Don't judge people for sinning differently than the way you sin.

P.S. I would love to see a poll on what type of penis people prefer. Cut or uncut. I am voting that the good majority will say cut.

Here endeth the lesson.

Have a good day!

[Gearbox]

How many Humans does it take to make mutilation a 'honoured tradition' and not a pointless disgracefull act?500? 1000's? A billion? Lets have a poll.lol

[Velorex]

I don't know Gearbox. Let's ask the hipster folk that have oversized gauge earrings, and tattoos that cover 70% of their body the same exact thing.

Better yet, let's ask the millions of 2 yr old girls, and some boys that have pierced ears.

Let's ask the millions of kid's that have to eat a vegetarian diet because it's their parent's choice.

Like I said before,

Don't judge people that sin differently than the way you sin.

[DuckiesDarling]

Drew has already been in this thread asking people to keep this civil. Calling circumcision molestation of children is not civil, it's rude and designed to be offensive to parents who made the choice based on medical advice. Fran, quite frankly, you are not a mother, no matter the love you feel for Kate's kids, you are not a mother and you have no idea how some sanctimonious garbage from people like you can hurt a mother and father who did the best they could for their children. I have told you how I feel about this before and you continue on your way you can join the others who insist they are right on how to think feel and live on my ignore list.

[darkeyes]

I may not be a natural mother but if u think I have no maternal feelings for my adopted daughter and her sister you know very little... you can tell me as often as u wish what u believe but just because u tell me doesn't mean I have to accept a word u say or stay quiet about the things I believe .. the hurt and harm inflicted upon an infant child and the removal of his right of consent is far greater than any words of mine can hurt or harm u or anyone else... sanctimonious garbage it may be, but it is the sanctimonious garbage of around 70% of the human race and sanctimonious garbage of the overwhelming bulk of the medical profession of the western world outside of the United States and most of the rest...

[Long Duck Dong]

humankind revolves, learns and changes its ideas..... but honesty, fran, your constant judgmental and opinionated ways of expressing yourself about other people, are most of the reason that people avoid listening to people like you.....

speak up about what you believe in by all means... but seriously, get your head out of your ass..... a child molester as you have called some medical experts and specialists, is a term that most people would associate with one of the lowest forms of life to breath air, they are often isolated in prison for their own safety and well being .... and well any intelligent person can see in the papal thread that nobody in that thread is talking about doctors and nurses in the catholic church......

I know that you will justify your actions by arguing that its a shock tactic to get the biggest reaction, from people, using a very offensive and dangerous label for a person.... and never mind the fact that mislabeling a person with such a dangerous label, can destroy a persons life.......... and its for that sake that I am thankful that you are not a parent..... as its parents that would not sacrifice their own beliefs for the sake of their children, that often place their children at the most risk....
and yes do the big song and dance about how you act around kates children,... but they are still kates children, and not your own.... its harder for your ideas to be challenged when its not your own flesh and blood that is the basis for the challenge to your beliefs.... and hence why its easier to call others, child molesters than face the fact that you would be a unfit mother

[elian]

Yet again a reason (albeit perhaps a foolish one) why I do not have children. Because it is a HARD decision to make. I would have preferred to have my foreskin intact but my parents did the best they could. I pouted over it when I was a teen but I'm not going to hang them for making that decision. Actually, I've been told that I should be glad because I have more foreskin than most, but it's still snipped. I have also seen/heard a few cases where circumcision was medically necessary - one person developed cancer as an adult and he was lucky not to lose the whole organ and another where the foreskin was so tight as to impede proper movement.

Even after saying that I'm still changing my mind back and forth thinking about clitoral removal in females and then saying, well if you don't like that, what is the difference in infant males? It's an issue that I have mixed feelings within my own self so how could I ever feel comfortable expecting or placing a judgment on someone else about it?

I can only speak for my own personal experience and I KNOW that my parents loved me and had my best interest at heart..they didn't act out of malice or spite so I - a) understand and b) forgive them.

There is a lot of stuff that we humans put up with in the name of cultural norms in order to fit in with the larger community for our own survival and benefit. What the "stuff" is varies from culture to culture.

[Showguy]

This is my first post on here but felt like I had to respond. Growing up in the fifties and then the sixties it was not cool to be uncut. My parents left me intact and I
don't know why as my older brother was circumcised. I remember as kids when Mom made us shower together that there was something different about my brother. I never had the guts to ask them why. Like when us little boys would do show me and I will show you mine, I always felt different. Going into high school and having to take showers in the gym class where the other guys could see my uncut penis was nerve racking. There was maybe one or two others guys like me and you could hear the giggling and comments about our penis's. I would always try to push the skin back so I would look somewhat like the others guys. Then I got drafted and into the army. No privacy there but it seemed like there were a lot more uncut guys there so I did not feel so out of place. No one made big deal out of it. Fast forward to age thirty-seven and I had enough of this, so I went to a urologist to take care of the problem. Yes I did have myself circumcised at that age. It was uncomfortable with the stitches, you dare not get an erection that was hard because the mornings were tough. After all was healed and I began to resume sexual relations all was fine and dandy. I was proud to bare my circumcised penis. All my life I had wanted this.

After all this and I am much older now and wiser I would not have had it done. I think this is the way man was made and it should stay that way. You guys who are cut do not know how sensitive that little piece of skin is. Especially when someone is touching it or playing with it. I don't have the sensitivity that I use to
for sure. Being uncircumcised was not a problem as far as cleanliness. Just pull the skin back in the shower and wash the penis every time your in the shower which should be every day. Yes it can be a huge problem if you do not do this. I found out in later years that my Dad was uncut but then from his era it was unusual or different to be cut.

I think there is somewhat of a push to try to scale back circumcision. I am just an ordinary guy and my opinion is God put that piece of skin there for a reason and
it should be left there unless there is a medical problem. A lot of Dr's and nurse's do agree that circumcision is not necessary. All said and done, I now know that I should have left myself intact. This is my two cents worth if it means anything. Just a personal experience I had.:)

[DuckiesDarling]

Oh, for the sake of Christ, woman; Shut the fuck up already.

No, I won't. You don't like what I say put me on ignore. But I will not let people call people who do the best they can for their children, child molesters.

[tenni]

This 2013 round of comments have not mentioned molestation at all..until well... guess who?

There are interesting stats on who keeps restarting this thread after month or near year breaks ...if drew takes a good look.

Interesting that five posters have been placed in cool out time or banned...just saying...rule 2
(not necessariy what they post on this thread though)...still interesting.

[Long Duck Dong]

This 2013 round of comments have not mentioned molestation at all..until well... guess who?

There are interesting stats on who keeps restarting this thread after month or near year breaks ...if drew takes a good look.

Interesting that five posters have been placed in cool out time or banned...just saying...rule 2
(not necessariy what they post on this thread though)...still interesting.

what does 5 posters being banned for their posts in other threads, got to do with this thread .... I thought you did not like threads going off topic with things that had nothing to do with the thread ?.....


So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey?

fran was the first to mention molestation of a child in the thread in 2013..... so what was the point you were going to make ?

fran knows how offended people get over the idea that they molested or allowed their children to be molested.... cos she knows what most people think when they hear those terms... its happened in the other threads where she has made the same type of remarks and then apologized later to people....

[elian]

you actually think this issue is one of the reasons you don't have children? I could almost hsit laughing at this. what's one of the many reasons why you're not married?

It's off topic but I'll bite - when I was young and stupid I didn't want to rush to get married and have children only to discover that I was gay later in life and drag my family through a messy divorce. It's easy enough to resolve now, I just tell any women that I am dating that I like men too - hell - I advertise it prominently on dating sites - that way they can decide for themselves if it is something they can live with before we invest years in the relationship. How about you?

[Gearbox]

@Velorex- It is illegal to tattoo a baby coz there are no millions claiming it is their religiouse/cultural right to. If there were, it would still be a violation of a babies rights just to suit it's parents beliefs. Same as circumsission for non-medical reasons.2yo's having their ears pierced is stupid and supperficial IMO, but the hole can heal. Circumsission is ireversable. The baby will NEVER get to chose how they want their own body. Vegitarian parents lose their 'no choice' agenda when the child moves out or can get to a cafe etc. Difference being, choices can be made by the individual eventually.

[darkeyes]

humankind revolves, learns and changes its ideas..... but honesty, fran, your constant judgmental and opinionated ways of expressing yourself about other people, are most of the reason that people avoid listening to people like you.....

speak up about what you believe in by all means... but seriously, get your head out of your ass..... a child molester as you have called some medical experts and specialists, is a term that most people would associate with one of the lowest forms of life to breath air, they are often isolated in prison for their own safety and well being .... and well any intelligent person can see in the papal thread that nobody in that thread is talking about doctors and nurses in the catholic church......

I know that you will justify your actions by arguing that its a shock tactic to get the biggest reaction, from people, using a very offensive and dangerous label for a person.... and never mind the fact that mislabeling a person with such a dangerous label, can destroy a persons life.......... and its for that sake that I am thankful that you are not a parent..... as its parents that would not sacrifice their own beliefs for the sake of their children, that often place their children at the most risk....
and yes do the big song and dance about how you act around kates children,... but they are still kates children, and not your own.... its harder for your ideas to be challenged when its not your own flesh and blood that is the basis for the challenge to your beliefs.... and hence why its easier to call others, child molesters than face the fact that you would be a unfit mother
I haven't done any song and dance 'bout how I act around my partner's children.. others make the song and dance about how they are not my own.. one is.. in the eyes of the law.. I would have thought it was more difficult for my ideas to be challenged if they were my natural children.. just shows what thought did.. but I can tell u this.. if I had a son of my own body, there is not a cat in hells chance I would allow any medical profession near his penis to remove its foreskin save that there were pressing medical need.. if anything my ideas would be firmer and my resolve greater.. u may well believe me to be a rigid, doctrinaire unfit mother.. but like all parents I have learned on the job so to speak.. and many of the illusions I had about raising children have been shown to be pie in the sky... but we adapt and learn through experience and care for and protect our children as best we are able... and oddly enough...many of those illusions have been shown not to be illusions... but have become the reality...

I don't accuse parents, who, after receiving advice from medical professionals that their child be circumcised, of molestation.. parents do things out of love and out of concern for their children and many follow the advice of those who "know best"... I am much less kind to the medical professional who advises circumcision. In the US there is money in circumcision and being a natural cynic about such things, I firmly believe that money plays its part in why so many US medical professionals advise as they do...what else is it when, without our informed consent, a part of our body is removed? An infant or young child cannot consent because he does not have the capacity or ability to consent... I have nothing against circumcision.. I never have... as long as that person is of an age to decide for himself that it should be done and is provided with the information to enable him to make that decision..

In this country parents have attempted to use the law to have their infant daughters' breast tissue removed as a precaution against breast cancer... the courts told them where to get off.. rightly so too.. but I am not opposed to women having their breasts removed..if that is their wish and they have the information available for them to make that decision.. neither do we allow female circumcision to be done on a child.. yet, I have no objection to a woman deciding to proceed with having their genitals mutilated if they are of an age to decide for themselves for cultural or religious reasons that they be done as long as they have the information, proper medical care and are not subject to undue pressure. Informed consent.. just what are people afraid of? I don't think I am being unreasonable in that people should have the maturity, knowledge and the awareness to be allowed to decide for themselves what to do with what is after all their body.

I don't accuse people of being unfit parents because they decide to proceed with having their sons circumcised.. I think they are wrong, and yes I would make it illegal save in cases of medical need, but I don't believe that their belief and their decision makes them unfit to raise their children.. every parent makes decisions which prove to be wrong and I am no different...Kate is no different.. but that doesn't make she or I unfit to raise a child.. and neither do our beliefs and our exercise of them..

..and Gear, while u are right about piercings, it is not up to us to decide whether either of our children have their ears or any other part of their body pierced... our elder has piercings including one through her snitch,and has ear piercings at least since she decided at the age of 7 to have it done... I was about the same age.. at 7 I do think a child has sufficient awareness to be able to decide, and to accept the knowledge of the reality.. and so it has proved.. it is aesthetic.. it also fucking hurts and smarts however fleetingly...*laffs*... she discussed it at length with her father and mother (Kate's parents) who agreed because as I understand it they felt she was mature enough to deal with it... Lou is beginning to show an interest in part because of peer pressure, and it is under discussion although as yet not very seriously.. but u know how kids can be once an idea pops into the head!! But it will be her decision if and when we feel she is old enough to make that decision for herself which as yet neither of us believe to be the case.

[Gearbox]

@ DD & LDD- Please start a thread about nonbiological parents. I'm sure it would very informative and clear up some points you have made here. As you haven't gone into much detail on this thread, you both come accros as a pair of ignorant dumb schoolgirls having a bitch at Fran. So if you realy have a point, explain it to us please.

[DuckiesDarling]

@ DD & LDD- Please start a thread about nonbiological parents. I'm sure it would very informative and clear up some points you have made here. As you haven't gone into much detail on this thread, you both come accros as a pair of ignorant dumb schoolgirls having a bitch at Fran. So if you realy have a point, explain it to us please.

You don't have a clue, Gear. Fran and I have been around this issue before about stating that circumcision is molestation of children. She knows very well how offensive it is yet she is the first to bitch about people using terms other might find offensive like tranny or shemale. So spare me your butting in, you are the one sounding very ignorant right now. I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter. It's a moot point now isn't it?

[darkeyes]

You don't have a clue, Gear. Fran and I have been around this issue before about stating that circumcision is molestation of children. She knows very well how offensive it is yet she is the first to bitch about people using terms other might find offensive like tranny or shemale. So spare me your butting in, you are the one sounding very ignorant right now. I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter. It's a moot point now isn't it?
He is also a male... hardly moot...

[DuckiesDarling]

He is also a male... hardly moot...

It is moot when he has never been in the position of having to decide whether or not circ a child. Still moot.

[Long Duck Dong]

I haven't done any song and dance 'bout how I act around my partner's children.. others make the song and dance about how they are not my own.. one is.. in the eyes of the law.. I would have thought it was more difficult for my ideas to be challenged if they were my natural children.. just shows what thought did.. but I can tell u this.. if I had a son of my own body, there is not a cat in hells chance I would allow any medical profession near his penis to remove its foreskin save that there were pressing medical need.. if anything my ideas would be firmer and my resolve greater.. u may well believe me to be a rigid, doctrinaire unfit mother.. but like all parents I have learned on the job so to speak.. and many of the illusions I had about raising children have been shown to be pie in the sky... but we adapt and learn through experience and care for and protect our children as best we are able... and oddly enough...many of those illusions have been shown not to be illusions... but have become the reality...

I don't accuse parents, who, after receiving advice from medical professionals that their child be circumcised, of molestation.. parents do things out of love and out of concern for their children and many follow the advice of those who "know best"... I am much less kind to the medical professional who advises circumcision. In the US there is money in circumcision and being a natural cynic about such things, I firmly believe that money plays its part in why so many US medical professionals advise as they do...what else is it when, without our informed consent, a part of our body is removed? An infant or young child cannot consent because he does not have the capacity or ability to consent... I have nothing against circumcision.. I never have... as long as that person is of an age to decide for himself that it should be done and is provided with the information to enable him to make that decision..

In this country parents have attempted to use the law to have their infant daughters' breast tissue removed as a precaution against breast cancer... the courts told them where to get off.. rightly so too.. but I am not opposed to women having their breasts removed..if that is their wish and they have the information available for them to make that decision.. neither do we allow female circumcision to be done on a child.. yet, I have no objection to a woman deciding to proceed with having their genitals mutilated if they are of an age to decide for themselves for cultural or religious reasons that they be done as long as they have the information, proper medical care and are not subject to undue pressure. Informed consent.. just what are people afraid of? I don't think I am being unreasonable in that people should have the maturity, knowledge and the awareness to be allowed to decide for themselves what to do with what is after all their body.

I don't accuse people of being unfit parents because they decide to proceed with having their sons circumcised.. I think they are wrong, and yes I would make it illegal save in cases of medical need, but I don't believe that their belief and their decision makes them unfit to raise their children.. every parent makes decisions which prove to be wrong and I am no different...Kate is no different.. but that doesn't make she or I unfit to raise a child.. and neither do our beliefs and our exercise of them..



you are using everything that you can to justify your stance... which is fine... you do not like circumcision,......

I know that you will argue that you are using a dictionary term for molestation...you have done it in the past....... and that you are using the term molestation, meaning to interfere with.....

a simple request from a circumcised male.... all I am asking, is what others have asked.... can you stop referring to circumcised children as children that were molested.... there are many circumcised males that are 100% sure that we were not molested by a child molester, we were circumcised...... and can you stop calling medical people child molesters, our parents never willingly put us in the arms of a child molester..... but you put that label on us and others.....

be a lil more sensitive, will you..

[tenni]

I think that someone like showguy has a valid and interestingly worthwhile position to pay attention to. The fact that many men in North America were circumcised at birth made it the norm while in Europe circumcision was not the norm. Unlike show guy, I can not compare. I have no concern/anxiety about being circumcised. Showguy mentions sensitivity issues. Did he find that before being circumcised that he had early ejaculation issues more so than after circumcision? It probably varies from uncircumcised guy to guy. I know of one guy whose foreskin doesn't retract when hard. He tends to cum quickly and has little control. I know another guy whose foreskin retracts when hard and he seemed to have a bit more control over his orgasm. Then we have aging and that is possibly a factor as well. Showguy waited until his 30's and may have developed better control methods by then(more in tune with his body & penis).

Those that have circumcision for religious purposes should have a right but it is probably best to not circumcise male infants in today's society. If it happened to guys like me, most of us are fine with it. It is all that we know. I am happier to have it done when a two day old infant than show guy later in life in my 30's.

"I am the mother of three sons, you have a daughter.

Clearly, we have read her story before in this thread and others. She seems to suffer from what appears a lot of guilt despite her protests. Other hetero and bisexual mothers on this site do not seem to get so upset and rant on in attack mode of others. What we haven't read is if she is the custodial parent of three sons. Do her (at least teen?) sons resent that she had them circumcised and watched(control issues much)? Where was her husband in this decision? She has previously posted that she made the decision and not her husband. I got the impression that he had no say(or was not around or didn't care is the impression her posts have given me). Personally, I think that the husband should be making this decision for his sons to a greater extent than the mother. If the father didn't want his sons circumcised, that should be it. The wife should have nothing to say. If the husband wanted his sons circumcised and the wife didn't, I don't know what the medical doctor should do. Probably the doctor should refuse to circumcise the boy.

[Gearbox]

No DD I've never been in the possition to decide if a son should be circumsised or not. I have a daughter who I chose not to enforce my beliefs on though. Especially if it disfigured her perfectly healthy genitalia for life. That seems unecasarily extreme to me. What you are suggesting is that there is some undefined biological quality between a parent and son that forces a choice on the parents to remove his foreskin or not. Something that no biological parent of a male can understand.That sounds completely unbelievable, so would like to see any research on that if you have it.

[DuckiesDarling]

No DD I've never been in the possition to decide if a son should be circumsised or not. I have a daughter who I chose not to enforce my beliefs on though. Especially if it disfigured her perfectly healthy genitalia for life. That seems unecasarily extreme to me. What you are suggesting is that there is some undefined biological quality between a parent and son that forces a choice on the parents to remove his foreskin or not. Something that no biological parent of a male can understand.That sounds completely unbelievable, so would like to see any research on that if you have it.

No, Gear, I never said there was a quality between a parent and child that forced anything. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth. I took offense at people being refered to as molested for being circumsized, for the parents being called molesters for circumsizing their sons. So stop trying to bring it back to nothing more than a choice to circ or not circ. It was something decided with my kids doctors and my ex husband. We made the choice for our kids based on medical evidence. I have no guilt over it and nothing anyone can say on this site can try to make me feel guilty. But I will not stand by and be called a child molester or be made to think my children were molested by the fact they were circed. The fact that my middle child was actually molested weighs heavily on my mind and to compare the two is beyond insane.

[tenni]

"So the wish to allow a baby boy the right to grow up unmolested and not have a quiet important bit of his body lopped off without his informed consent is bigoted hey?"
post 116

darkeyes (guess who?)
Do you not mean "not mutalated"? rather than "unmolested"?

[Gearbox]

No, Gear, I never said there was a quality between a parent and child that forced anything. So you can stop trying to put words into my mouth. I took offense at people being refered to as molested for being circumsized, for the parents being called molesters for circumsizing their sons. So stop trying to bring it back to nothing more than a choice to circ or not circ. It was something decided with my kids doctors and my ex husband. We made the choice for our kids based on medical evidence. I have no guilt over it and nothing anyone can say on this site can try to make me feel guilty. But I will not stand by and be called a child molester or be made to think my children were molested by the fact they were circed. The fact that my middle child was actually molested weighs heavily on my mind and to compare the two is beyond insane.
You claimed that Fran not being a biological mother and I not having a son renders our opinions 'moot' to yours. If it's about doctors giving parents of males advice in favour of circumcision then I can see why you'd think that. Most wouldn't question the opinions of doctors when they claim that a 'routine procedure' is in the best interests of their child, especially if we didn't have accsess to the research they had. We'd likely think, "Well they know best!", even if we have no idea what they are talking about.
You can't be blamed for that! Neither can you serously think that Fran was accusing you of sexual molestation. She'd have no reason to, and would call a spade a spade if she did, I'm sure. To molest is to physicaly attack/assault a victim, a violation of persons rights etc. Not just a sexual assault! It's obviouse what sense Fran would use 'molestation' in regards to circumcission. She has explained her views ample times.

[Long Duck Dong]

gear, read back thru frans posts, she posted in the past that she uses the words in the way she does, with the intention to shock and offend, as it gets the biggest reaction.......

it should be in the thread where 8 different parents took offense at the way fran was portraying parents that had their children circumcised.... or could it be in the one where circumcised people were being portrayed as mutilated and sexual dysfunctional and the medical experts as sadistic freaks ( fran did not say that ) or it could be the one where circumcised people were hideous and deformed because their parents mutilated them happily... or it could be.....

maybe you get my point.... we are people too, human beings.... but we get treated like some sub class of human being by the people that supposedly care about us and what has happened to us....

as for what DD said, she was referring to the way that people are talking about having young boys circumcised, and out of you, me, fran, tenni and DD, only one of us has been in that situation... you, tenni, and fran are passing judgement on her and others.... and I am just thinking, this is why the majority of the site avoid threads like this....

[Gearbox]

Aren't you both using shock tacticts when claiming Fran accuses parents of sexual molestation? Also with your claims of her making others feel sub-Human?
That's a bit OTT!
Fran is on the side of the infant males who have no reasonable need of circumsission, yet their parents force it on them knowing full well how medically unecasary it is. She can not stress that enough!
A cut cock is a deformed uncut cock. There's no two ways about it. It has been deformed. But cut cocks are not hidiouse or grotesque. That is the act of removing forseskin for the sole sake of the parent/guardians without consent nor medical benifit of the child. As Fran pointed out, same goes for adult non consenting nor needing circumcision too. That doesn't happen, coz that is against the law. Infants need equal protection, and that is what the thread is about.

[DuckiesDarling]

Gear you are fighting a lost cause, Fran will tell you herself she sees it as molestation and that's all she will see. So kindly stop trying to keep the flames of this going. You have no idea what is like to be the parent of a child who has been molested, and I pray to the Goddess you never have to find out.

[Long Duck Dong]

no because I never accused fran of that.... I pointed out what most people think of when they hear the words molests and molestor.... by using the papal thread as a example of how the words molest and molestor are used, NOT sexual molestor..... and others have pointed out the same thing in other threads .... so implying that we are claiming that fran is accusing parents of sexual molestation, is actually you twisting what fran says which is MOLESTATION......

forcing circumcision on their children ? that implies that parents choose to act in a manner that is akin to inflicting intentional harm on a child.... yet when I countered that argument in another circumcision thread, with the rule of thumb that forcing surgery on a child, is forcing pain and suffering on a child, the argument against that, was no, because its done out of love, therefore its different...... try telling a child that surgery hurts less because you love them and you have removed their choice.... in essence you force them to have surgery.......

a cut cock is a cut cock, your need to call it a deformed cock is your need to see it as something less than a cock..... and I am half expecting you to say that you would never touch a deformed cut cock ... which can be a form of personal choice... but reads like a form of discrimination and like cut males are a form of leper.....

infants need equal protection, I agree, but there are not been a thread in the site, about circumcision, where cut males have not been labeled as deformed, mutilated etc...... gee feel the love.....

so much of the arguments against circumcision, involve put downs, offensive remarks and implications etc about people, parents and circumcised people.... and how we are some freak of nature, deformed etc....


seriously thats not serious and constructive argument against circumcision....its just insulting people and being rude and offensive......

as I have said in other threads, I will argue that medical circumcision is going to be a evil that will be a part of human life, and I will defend its use...... as for other forms of circumcision.... well thats up to those people, their beliefs and their culture...... who am I to dictate how others should live, when I fight for the right to live my life my way......however, I can fight against circumcision without having to lower my standards to the level of people that need to be degrading, insulting and judgmentally offensive, in order to express their opposition to circumcision....

if cut cocks are so *vile * to view... then I would suggest that anybody that dislikes cut cocks, do not have see with cut males, instead of having sex with them then complaining about the cut cock later..........

[dafydd]

Cut cocks and uncut cocks look the same when erect.
Men are erect most of the time.
And some men have such big heads that their foreskin cannot fit over it... And they look circumcises anyway.

[Brian]

And I think that is enough for now...

- Drew :paw:

[Brian]

I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.

But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?

- Drew :paw:

[darkeyes]

I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.

But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?

- Drew :paw:Indeed u did, Droosy Woosy... but ur big enough to see it so ty.. I shall have a few words to say since my name seems to have been dragged through the mud as a judgemental, vindictive, heartless, selfish, thoughtless, evil, nasty bitch.. but I shall be polite and wont rip into peeps as they have ripped into me.. but not 2day, Andrew dear... u will all just have to wait for my pearls of wisdom.. I have a nice romantic evening ahead and wont allow it to be spoiled tyvm:).

[Gearbox]

I am going to re-open this thread. I might have jumped the gun a bit.

But please... is there a way to discuss the topic without lacing it with emotionally charged words? Perhaps we all pretend we are scientists... how would scientists debate this issue?

- Drew :paw:
Thank you lovely man.:)

Gear you are fighting a lost cause, Fran will tell you herself she sees it as molestation and that's all she will see. So kindly stop trying to keep the flames of this going. You have no idea what is like to be the parent of a child who has been molested, and I pray to the Goddess you never have to find out.
I am attempting the opposite of 'fanning flames', by pointing out the obvious:- Words have different meanings in different contexts. They will not only have one meaning just coz you decide they do. The accusation of sexual molestation has not been made by Fran in this thread! YES it is a word more recognized for it's sexual context as in 'molested via sex' , and is a poor choice of words due to that common association. But now you know that she doesn't mean what you think, you can relax and not get offended?


infants need equal protection, I agree, but there are not been a thread in the site, about circumcision, where cut males have not been labeled as deformed, mutilated etc...... gee feel the love.....
We agree that infants need protection, and that's what the thread is about.:)
Cut cocks being deformed,mutilated etc is another matter. There is nothing wrong with liking or even preferring cut cocks (on adults). They may be deformed, mutilated versions of what they would have been naturally, but that doesn't mean they are not attractive or even more attractive to some.
Owners of cut cocks need not worry, and I doubt many do.
This thread is concerned with their rights at infancy, and nothing to do with cut/uncut preferences of sexual partners in adulthood.
I personally prefer uncut, but being cut is no big deal to me as a sexual partner.

[Velorex]

Blah, Blah, Blah, Potatoe, Patato.......Tomato, Tomoto......around and around this subject has gone for 5 pages, and everyone has voiced their same opinion over and over. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, so we should all agree to disagree, and start a new thread, IMO.

[Long Duck Dong]

well drew you relock the thread, since its clear that the people that are so concerned about the health and wellbeing of other people, are not able to converse with others without using emotionally charged words and basically being offensive to the very people that they supposedly care about, until we grew up and stopped being children whose feelings mattered.......

you were generous enuf to reopen the thread to give people the chance to continue in the thread and debate the matter as intelligent mature adults, but the first two posts right after yours, show that its too emotionally charged for some people to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner, and but simply referring to people as cut or uncut, instead deformed, mutilated, molested etc etc....

[Gearbox]

well drew you relock the thread, since its clear that the people that are so concerned about the health and wellbeing of other people, are not able to converse with others without using emotionally charged words and basically being offensive to the very people that they supposedly care about, until we grew up and stopped being children whose feelings mattered.......

you were generous enuf to reopen the thread to give people the chance to continue in the thread and debate the matter as intelligent mature adults, but the first two posts right after yours, show that its too emotionally charged for some people to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner, and but simply referring to people as cut or uncut, instead deformed, mutilated, molested etc etc....
If it's yours and DD's intention to sabotage this thread by claiming offence with certain words, then you make it too obvious by constantly using those words yourselves. Nobody has used them as much as you two.
They are used by myself to explain their meanings to you both, yet you both reject the clinical definitions and enforce the absurd emotive ones.

So why don't we try having an adult discussion without using those words all together? Lets ditch the drama.:)

[Long Duck Dong]

If it's yours and DD's intention to sabotage this thread by claiming offence with certain words, then you make it too obvious by constantly using those words yourselves. Nobody has used them as much as you two.
They are used by myself to explain their meanings to you both, yet you both reject the clinical definitions and enforce the absurd emotive ones.

So why don't we try having an adult discussion without using those words all together? Lets ditch the drama.:)

did you read what drew said... you had the chance to drop it after drew reopened the thread.....so why restart the issue as soon as you could, then blame other people ?

[tenni]

I'm not sure if someone else on this long thread has pointed out that this religious circumcision argument happened in California a year before the German decisions. The anti circumcision or intactivists as one stated were prevented from getting a law banning circumcision on the ballot

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/health/california-circumcision-law

To add to this, here is a funny video on trolling which seems to apply to this thread imo. Oh my I hope that they are not offended by this. It is funny...you don't have to watch the entire three hours but it is funny... ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPKRMIqbgjs

[jamieknyc]

In the California case, the ballot proposal was stricken off on the grounds that it was preempted by state law. In the unlikely event that the ballot proposal had been passed by the voters, it would undoubtedly have been thrown out by the courts on First Amendment grounds.

[tenni]

In the California case, the ballot proposal was stricken off on the grounds that it was preempted by state law. In the unlikely event that the ballot proposal had been passed by the voters, it would undoubtedly have been thrown out by the courts on First Amendment grounds.

Yes, perhaps the same thing but it made reference to state wide rather than municipalities making varying laws on circumcision. The rules were to be uniform across the state.

Jamie
When you write "pre empted by state law", I got the impression that circumcision is legal but was there actually a state law before what Gov Brown did about circumcision? Or was it considered a medical procedure?

[jamieknyc]

I am not a California attorney, but my understanding is that state law or state regulations already governed this, and a local government ballot initiative cannot override state law, as the state can't do with federal law.

[goldenfinger]

I'm trying to imagine what this would look like.LOL
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+3%3A5-7%2CJoshua+5%3A2-6%3A1%2CJoshua+6%3A27&version=ESV
I once worked on a cattle and sheep farm, and know what it looks like when they "mark" the lambs, balls all over the place.

[goldenfinger]

Without getting deeper into a pissing match, I will only point out that this sort of thing is the reason why tens of millions of people from every country in Europe emigrated to America.
Really.
Better take a look at the real facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
You won't find Europe in the top 10.

[darkeyes]

This thread is about the criminalising of all infant and child circumcision, particularly of that carried out in the name of a God in the light of the decision of a German court... this latter kind of circumcision, where it is not cultural or aesthetic, becomes even more controversial because it involves deeply held personal religious beliefs, and I understand why so many objected to the decision by the German court even if events are fast putting that decision into reverse, and also to my own personal point of view. Yet I have outlined why I think it was a right decision, just as the historical decisions to outlaw many practices by many religions, from witch burning, burning for heresy, to stoning to the lopping off of hands to the burning of widows on a funeral pyre were, in my opinion at least, also right decisions... they were considered barbaric and the wishes of religious leaders was over-ruled by the wishes of the state as human beings struggled to become more enlightened and tolerant in how they saw the world.

If we believe in secular societies, the wishes of the people, through the state, while they must seriously consider the wishes of each religion and the religious views and ideals of those religions' adherents, must consider the wishes of all of its people, of all religions and of none.. it is the duty of the state as protector of the people to protect its people from practices which are generally considered to be wrong, even to the extent of over-ruling custom, practice and often belief of any religion. It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..

The state should tread lightly upon religions, yet it must never allow any religion to dictate to it or its people when that people are so varied in religion and belief, and so must draw lines which stop religion, or the leaders and principle of a single religion from running society. The state should not dictate belief, but the state has a duty to decide law for all of its people and occasionally must reign in some of the worst practices of tat belief.. How else would we have abolished the many barbarisms which religions inflicted upon humankind in ages past? Some things were considered too heinous to be allowed to continue.. in western society, we do not allow female circumcision upon infants and the young for any reason other than medical.. are girls any better than boys that we have law against allowing them to undergo their own form of the procedure? Some say it is different, but it is not... it is parents deciding that a child will be surgically modified in some way at the behest of cultural norms and often with a religious overtone.. it is considered different partly because it is an African procedure and therefore so much less important than circumcision of boys and so is in its way considered to be infinitely more primitive and barbaric.. my argument is that it is also it is racist and sexist to allow one and yet not the other.. or as I prefer, to ban one and not the other.. child's right to decide what happens to his or her body when he or she is able to do so has been removed and decisions taken for religious and /or cultural reasons. We have no right to condemn one without condemning the other..

Some have concentrated on my use of the word "unmolested" to illustrate my intolerance of them as parents as I consider them molesters of their children.. this is not the case and have said so if u care to read back and have explained why but shall repeat it and expand upon it but that expansion too will create greater controversy but I can't help that for it is what I believe....... because of a cultural and often religious attachment to circumcision of infants, to some degree parents should accept complicity.. the primary responsibility and even greater complicity is on the one hand, that of the medical professional and institutions in the US certainly who advise and push it for in my opinion.. money and profit primarily.. and on the other those religious leaders and preachers who insist upon it as the will of god..the molesters are those who perform the circumcision procedure... the result of which is of course the mutilation of a perfectly healthy child's penis for no medical reason but for aesthetic, cultural or because it is the will of their religious leaders... I am aware that this is a controversial claim, but it is one in which I sincerely believe. I'd not say it to offend but to explain why I think it..

Every parent makes mistakes and I am no different.. in my opinion, parents who opt for their child to be circumcised have made a mistake, but I will not condemn them for it.. they believe it right and who has the gall to condemn a parent for doing what they believe is right for their child? They bear some responsibility but the primary responsibility is not theirs but the prevailing cultural, medical and religious attitudes which surround them. Battering hell out of children for their own good was once considered a good thing... as was forcing left handed children to write with the right hand and many were severely chastised simply for being left handed.. and historically worse... we have moved on and few believe that now.. and that is what I argue.. we have moved on.. this is not the ancient past.. we supposedly in the west at least live in a more enlightened age. There is no good reason to circumcise a healthy foreskin.. certainly not as a precaution, or even for good hygiene... if we lopped off every part of our body susceptible to serious disease we would not exist... or every part that was likely to become a little less than clean... and no one.. no one in my opinion, has the right to decide for an infant or a child too young to decide for themselves that healthy parts of their body, it doesn't matter which parts, should be removed without good sound medically pressing reasons. That should be the child's decision to make when that child is able so to do when able to absorb all the information and the risk involved, and there is risk.. babies and children do die, and do end up with serious physical and sexual problems because of circumcision even with the best medical care that society can provide..... it is an arrogance for anyone to be so presumptuous, be it parent, church, mosque or state..

If I may answer Darling Darling who claims that all I am interested in is the aspect of molestation of children.. not so.. that certainly, and the resultant mutilation.. but I have written far more about my objection to infant and child circumcision over the last few years in these forums than a simple objection to molestation and even mutilation however much I abhor them.. whenever we are operated on surgically we are mutilated to a greater or smaller degree... some mutilations are even thought to be aesthetically pleasing; breast implants and other cosmetic surgeries for instance.. yes, even circumcision. and people have opted for them for themselves based on information they have been able to absorb and decide accordingly.. my own breast surgery for cancer was necessary, and the subsequent patch up to me was necessary, even if I wouldn't have died as a result of not having the cosmetic part if the surgery was not done. But it was my decision take in the light of all information which I searched out and was provided with... and that is the crux... the decision of the person whose body part is in question... their rights.. rights which in my opinion we all have but which have some decide to remove from children often long before they could even walk or say mama...

If a child requires surgery for good sound medical reasons, and afterwards some cosmetic work done on whatever part of the body, then of course t is a parent's obligation to do the best for that child they can and so few would object to a parent taking that decision on the child's behalf because that child is not capable of understanding or communicating his or her wishes... such a decision is taken to deal with an existing medical problem is a completely different thing from authorising the removal of healthy part of the body because they had it done themselves as a child, on parental whim, or because culture, religion or medical profession says it should be done as a precaution.... Few if any of us would appreciate being told by church or state that we have to have a circumcision because that is how it must be... and being taken against our will, strapped down, often not sedated and having a not insignificant operation on our genitals... we are adults.. we have freedom of choice.. what we call free will.. can we not allow a child to grow and develop his or her own and make that choice for his or herself? None of us would like our rights of control over our own bodies removed.. so what right have any of us to remove the rights of another human being simply because religion, culture or parents think it best when there is no medical need? Do we really think so little of our children? And are religions so lacking in confidence in their believers that they are unable to trust those believers to do "the right thing" when they become mature and well informed enough to decide for themselves what to do about their foreskin? Where is their faith in their followers?

Of course how I am and what I believe according to some, makes me unfit to be a mother. That I care about children and care about children having rights over their bodies which parents should only assume pro tem when there is a pressing medical reason for that to be is somehow a crime in the eyes of some.. I am an adoptive mother and yet my knowledge of children and my belief in the rights of the child and the views I hold make me unfit to be a natural mother...I have been accused of not being fit for purpose in that regard by more than just people on this site, both because of my sexuality and the fact that I do not believe in God, but also because I am not a patriot and refuse to teach our children to be patriots and for a myriad of other reasons. I too get offended at times, but it is not against the law to offend, neither is it my right not to have people say offensive things to me. I am a quite happy for people to speak as they find and as they believe and so am I not to be accorded the same courtesy? Those who throw at us that they are offended by what we say or do, or what we believe are telling us to shut up and stay quiet and wish to restrict our freedom not just to speak but also to believe. I do not go out of my way to be offensive, contrary to what Duckie has tried to make out, but I admit occasionally to doing just as he says...it is not the norm but sometimes circumstances are such that it is the best way to proceed in my view, but whatever we believe and say someone is likely to take offence and that is an unavoidable aspect of living and of having the ability to think speak and act. It is an inevitable consequence of the freedom of speech.

When xsailor posted on this thread again (for very dubious and questionable purposes I may add) I said I didn't intend to get involved but I have allowed myself to be sucked in.. it happens.. after this post I will say no more but I do find it sad that some posters have both ignored and minimised the overwhelming bulk of the contributions I made and concentrated so much on one word.. it is an important word I accept but it is not the most important aspect of anything I or others have said. My opposition to circumcision of infant or young boys is far more than about molestation or mutilation.. these posters have almost trivialised their importance by emotive over emphasis as well as inaccuracies in what I actually said and used that aspect to garner support and distract from the wider case against infant and child circumcision.. their choice, and good luck to them with it.

There are many hostages to fortune contained in the words I have written for those who detest what I say to get stuck into.. there always are... that's how it goes... no doubt also for those who are broadly in the anti infant circumcision side of the debate... trust me.. in life I have crossed swords with a few of them for my views on infant circumcision.. but if we speak we set ourselves up for criticism and to be shot down in flames..I have tried to stay calm and rational, minimise any offence but know that to avoid offence is unlikely given the controversial nature of the subject matter and knowledge of some of the people on site and off.. but what I say is what I believe and none of what I have said is for any other purpose than to defend both the rights of the child and children themselves.

Sorry about the length.. but a lot needed said.. enjoy the day..

[Long Duck Dong]

fran, you should pull your head out of your ass and realise that its not your opinion about things that is the issue... its what you are saying about other people that is the issue...... as rule two states ( and no I am not using it against you ) flame the idea ( circumcision ) not the people ( the circumcised, the parents, the medical professionals etc etc )..... we have feelings too....

[darkeyes]

It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..




Oops.. know I said I'd shut up... but this part should read "over-riding jurisdiction of secular rather than religious law". :)Soz.

[zigzig]

I think circumcision is a human made thing. It is even worse, when done on a woman. It does affect person's sexual life. I had a muslim lover, who was circumcised, and he had problems to cum, because wasn't so sensitive.

[**Peg**]

fran, you should pull your head out of your ass and realise that its not your opinion about things that is the issue... its what you are saying about other people that is the issue...... as rule two states ( and no I am not using it against you ) flame the idea ( circumcision ) not the people ( the circumcised, the parents, the medical professionals etc etc )..... we have feelings too....


and that comment isn't inflammatory? "somebody" needs to look in a mirror. Your comment to Fran "what you are saying about other people" applies to you in this post... shame on you.

Drew's comment about flaming applies to posters, not third parties.

[elian]

We should make responding to this thread by quoting another person's comments forbidden, that forces you to think about the issue rather than start off by immediately attacking another person's credibility.

Don't tell me who personally is "right" or "wrong", tell me about your own personal experience or your own personal thoughts regarding circumcision. Based on your own response about your own experience I will make my own judgment. If the purpose is to solicit feedback then there are no wrong thoughts - but there may be points of view I haven't considered before.

If you cannot respond to the thread by considering the topic only, then maybe it's better not to respond.

Ritual circumcision makes me sad, but it is a fact of life. I know that over the years there is a whole history of medical "professionals" dabbling in "moralism" that contrived everything from the vibrator to the device that pierces the penis or sets off an alarm if a young man touches himself at night. I know that our culture is quite schizophrenic when it comes to sex but I am not still not prepared to condemn my parents for doing what they thought was normal and trying to make it so I fit in with the rest of the group.

As much as I don't like the idea of infants not having a voice I don't think the state should be involved in these sort of matters. When I am a parent then I will be able to decide what is best for my own child, in partnership with my spouse.

[tenni]

Elain
I agree with your last sentence but have you not posted off topic as well? I will now in part post off topic to respond to your "procedural command".

It is called dialoguing and discussing when a person refers to what another person has written. The difference between some posts are that they are too emotive and personal about others.

The issue that you have posted is about communicating and not circumcision. Should I not refer to your "command" about what "we" should do? Should I phrase it in the personal and tell a story about when someone did X which has nothing to do with the thread topic because it reminds me of what you wrote?

NOPE. The thread is about "what should be done" or not done. One country bans circumcision and another country forbids the banning of circumcision as a law on the municipal level. Both are facts about differing societies dealing with circumcision.

Being emotive seems to be the intent of your proposal rather than logical and factual? That is not debating nor discussing. It is self disclosure but that self disclosure should relate to the topic such as an above post from someone who was intact and then cirucmcised as an adult. He was able to compare the two. His self discloure related to the topic. I think that we get enough emoting on this site..with the crisis threads about "bi boyfriends what should I do"..threads about "do you like your asshole stretched" etc. May we not have some intelligent posts and threads dealing with issues whether they be about bisexuality or some other socio political issue? Are they to be all about emoting and self disclosure?

It seems that some have difficulty debating without personalizing which is the point of rule 2. When will they learn to not make it personal attack rather than about the issue? When will they learn that if someone brings up a controversial idea and they get upset that they need to deal with the issue and not demand censorship. Emoting without fact is just emoting and has no real valid place in such a thread as this.

I agree with Peg about dealing with the idea and pointing out when someone personally attacks by writing such comments as "pull your head out of your ass". In a sense that is group moderation. In a sense drew seems to be realizing that there is a need for some moderation of the post behaviour.

The difficulty is when a poster slurs another poster not addressing what the poster has written. Rule 2 is about dealing with the ideas and not the person. The difference is about "who starts the slur and who merely refers to the slur with agreement or disagreement. If the thread becomes about the slur it fails. It can become a bit of a Catch 22.

I'm not sure about emoting as Elian is proposing.

Back to circumcision. ;) Neither of us have dealt with the facts and opinions of what darkeyes posted. I'm going back to the article itself and think about my own country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know that circumcision may be dealt differently.

Here is the quote from the article that we might want to compare our own country's laws and constitutions. In Canada's section 15 it deals with minority rights. I wonder what is in the German constitution that makes the court decisions the way it is but in the US the court went in a different direction?

"
The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland."

[DuckiesDarling]

We should make responding to this thread by quoting another person's comments forbidden, that forces you to think about the issue rather than start off by immediately attacking another person's credibility.

Don't tell me who personally is "right" or "wrong", tell me about your own personal experience or your own personal thoughts regarding circumcision. Based on your own response about your own experience I will make my own judgment. If the purpose is to solicit feedback then there are no wrong thoughts - but there may be points of view I haven't considered before.

If you cannot respond to the thread by considering the topic only, then maybe it's better not to respond.

Ritual circumcision makes me sad, but it is a fact of life. I know that over the years there is a whole history of medical "professionals" dabbling in "moralism" that contrived everything from the vibrator to the device that pierces the penis or sets off an alarm if a young man touches himself at night. I know that our culture is quite schizophrenic when it comes to sex but I am not still not prepared to condemn my parents for doing what they thought was normal and trying to make it so I fit in with the rest of the group.

When I am a parent then I will be able to decide what is best for my own child, in partnership with my wife.

I agree, Elian.. problem is we talk about personal experiences and are told we are wrong by people who can't possibly experience them to tell us we are wrong. I give up on this thread. Doesn't matter how you point out that words have power and the accusation by anyone to anyone of "molestation" will bring up certain contexts that can cost someone their livelihood without actually being accused and brought into court. Semantics aside, the flamers can just keep flaming, it makes the people who actually do put the health and welfare of their children as the uttermost in their minds look a whole lot better. Personally, I hate when someone pierces a babie's ears cause it looks nice. Doesn't mean I'm gonna accuse them of abuse or molestation or being a bad parent. It's just not a choice I would make. So keep on flaming guys. When Drew steps in I don't want to see a single word typed about the unfairness of the ban or censorship. Rules are clear, you can't follow them then get out of the sandbox with the big boys and girls.

[Long Duck Dong]

I perfer to call it the truth........peg and if I look in the mirror any more, the fucking thing is gonna crack... and I am not going to apologise YET AGAIN

[elian]

Thanks for sharing DD, I appreciate your honest opinion.

[tenni]

“If we believe in secular societies, the wishes of the people, through the state, while they must seriously consider the wishes of each religion and the religious views and ideals of those religions' adherents, must consider the wishes of all of its people, of all religions and of none.. it is the duty of the state as protector of the people to protect its people from practices which are generally considered to be wrong, even to the extent of over-ruling custom, practice and often belief of any religion. It is this multi-religious aspect of any society, and the fact that, certainly in the modern era, there are often vast populations who have no religion, at least in part require religion to be subservient to the people through the state and the states elected representatives, and subject very much to the over-riding jurisdiction of secular and religious law..”

In Canada, section 15 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
“


15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.’



The Supreme Court has dealt with equality and religious rights. In the case of Siks wearing head covering and kirpans(small swords) it has found that the right of religion over ruled RCMP custom of head gear (hats as part of a uniform vs the religious requirement to cover all hair). It ruled that the turban is permitted due to religion. The kirpan was even more controversial. It was ruled that the kirpan could be worn in certain public places such as schools. Complete covering of the head (Islamic) has been declared as inappropriate in certain court cases where the facial expression of the witness might effect the decisions of the accused, it has been stated that the woman must reveal her face when voting and court exposure of the face will be decided by the judge depending upon circumstances where the hiding of the face might impact the charged with lack of justice. (complicated)

Circumcision has not been dealt with as a Charter challenge yet. Female circumcision is illegal on the basis that it impacts the woman. I suspect that if male circumcision is brought to the Supreme Court that it will rule as the Germans have made their law banning circumcision of infants. I don’t know though. What medical evidence was brought forth in the German decision to support making circumcision over ride the equality aspects and freedom of religion is not stated in the article. What is in the German constitution that permits such an over ruling of freedom of religion?

[elian]

Thanks for sharing tenni, it wasn't really my intention to stifle the discussion, I just want to focus on the issue, not the person writing the post.

In the US I think people would go crazy if you told them that the government was going to make a law to either ban or require circumcision. As far as I know there is no formal law, but there is a very strong societal pressure to require it, prominent medical professional organizations support it, etc.

Does that make it right? I don't think so but again - the only person I can speak for is myself.

[tenni]

Ah
I found a case about circumcision and the Supreme Court of Canada

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/11/16/bc-kitchen-circumcision-decision-scoc.html

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously dismissed the appeal of a British Columbia man who tried to circumcise his four-year-old son on his kitchen floor with a carpet-cutting blade.
The boy needed corrective surgery to repair the damage from the botched procedure.
In a 7-0 ruling from the bench, the justices left intact a Court of Appeal ruling convicting the man of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

In another article gave its reasons.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/supreme-court-upholds-conviction-for-man-who-tried-to-circumcise-son-at-home/article5395259/

"The original trial was told the man felt his religious beliefs required that his son be circumcised. Doctors advised him to wait until the child was older and stronger before performing the procedure."

"The appeal court restored convictions on the assault counts and stayed the negligence charge, conditional on the conviction for aggravated assault."

"The trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure, that the blade used wasn’t as sharp as a surgical instrument and it was inappropriate to use a veterinary product to try and staunch the bleeding from the boy’s partly severed foreskin.
DJW’s religious background was as a Jehovah’s Witness, although he was “disfellowshipped” by his family and the church. The Crown said his religious education and associations later led him to believe that male circumcision was a covenant with God.
He attempted to circumcise himself in 2005 and could not stop the bleeding. He had to go to an emergency room where a doctor sutured the wound."

In this case, the man went against medical advice. It was seen that the circumstances of the circumcision were aggravated assault rather than equality of religion. The question remains as to why the doctors advised to wait until the boy was older and stronger when infants are circumcised by doctors in Canada every day? (although I suspect the numbers of circumcisions are going down..not sure)

[Gearbox]

Both DD & LDD make calls for Drew to close this thread. Both use drama and personal slurs to divert discussion from the topic, When their own claims and concerns are addressed, it is met with flat out arrogance and bitter rebutal. They are constantly the kiss of death to civility on any thread that has topics they dislike,DD has posted on such threads demanding that they are not discussed. When that doesn't work, trolling starts to sabutage.It can not be more obviouse IMO!Sorry for being off topic, but am more interested in how they get away with it at the mo. Sick of it too.

[tenni]

“problem is we talk about personal experiences and are told we are wrong by people who can't possibly experience them to tell us we are wrong.”
“I perfer to call it the truth........peg”


There are so many flaws in such statements as above.

Experience has its place but is not the only factor in determining right from wrong.

Was it right that race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex/gender/sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability prevented equality in a society?

Is age a factor and there is a need to protect with laws a person due to their age?

Are there situations where the parent's rights need to be over ruled in order to protect a person not of legal age?

Yes in some cases where the person's health and very life may be in danger but is circumcision such a situation is being debated? I would prefer that scientific evidence be weighed more highly than a parent's experience. I would prefer to pay attention to a male who had circumcision later in life's experience over a mother or father (if circumcised at birth) experience.

If you have not experienced discrimination, etc., that doesn’t exclude a person from knowing that it is wrong or right.

When someone tells us that we are wrong, consider the possibility instead of demanding that a thread or person should be censored.

Gear
Many of us tire of this less than humble behaviour and proclamation of victimhood unless the person(s?) controls the site. Some dare try to be the “boss of us” as if they have been assigned moderator roles. :( One has said to ignore or block the poster if it bothers you. However when an attempt to dominate threads is going on, it make it very difficult.

[elian]

Wow I was reading the story of the case with the Jehovah's Witness, ok, so your faith is important to you - why on Earth as an adult wouldn't you go to a doctor to have yourself circumcised? aggh. I feel so bad for the four year old, I can't imagine having your dad do that to you in the kitchen with a carpet knife... If it must be done it should be done by qualified, experienced medical personnel.

Creating a law to prohibit certain behaviors based purely on moral reasons hasn't worked very well for the United States. In particular I am thinking of the prohibition of alcohol and as sad as it is to think about abortion, what life used to be like before abortion was legal. People would resort to self-surgery. We used to send young women away and have them committed to an insane asylum if they had a child out of wedlock - I guess the family just didn't want to deal with it. Sort of sad to think that just because a young woman wanted love and affection not only was she humiliated but also subjected to enemas, courses of "opium therapy" and electroshock .. grrr..

I guess people will say we are a lot less "moral" now but young people are going to have children, I am glad that there is less stigma nowadays. The family has more of a chance to see the child as a blessing, even if the circumstances of the birth might not be ideal.

[elian]

Oh right, isn't Jehovah's Witness one of the faiths that refuses medical treatment? So they wouldn't go to a doctor. Geesh, then find a Rabbi ... grrr

[tenni]

Jehovah's Witnesses do not practice literal circumcision for religious reasons. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, are forbidden to circumcise as it violates the body. Mormons, Christian Scientists, and the Amish are also forbidden to circumcise or be circumcised. As has already been stated the majority of males in North America are circumcised for a medical belief(some dispute the factual aspects of this medical belief) and not for religious reasons. Comparing the German or even European decisions on circumcision with North America are not equal or for the same reasons.

"Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek medical care when needed, and many work in the health-care field. We accept the vast majority of treatments available today.—Luke 5:31" from a Jehovah Witness website.
Elian
You may want to look into Christian Science rather than Jehovah Witnesses for refusing medical treatment. JW refuse blood transfusion on religious grounds.

Oct. 2012 article
http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2012/10/04/andrew-hammel-why-the-circumcision-judgment-looks-so-weird-to-american-eyes/

“The Cologne Landgericht decision proclaiming religious circumcision to be a form of illegal assault will apparently soon be superseded by legislation permitting the practice under certain conditions. “

“An enlightening 2002 analysis by Geoffrey P. Miller shows that all U.S. published U.S. court cases about male circumcision involve botched operations or problems with obtaining parents’ consent. It appears that no U.S. court has yet addressed a situation in which a doctor has been criminally prosecuted for competently performing a circumcision with the consent of the child’s guardians.”

[goldenfinger]

Really.
Better take a look at the real facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
You won't find Europe in the top 10.

Best place to be born.
Where is the US???

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/13/should-america-try-to-be-like-scandinavia/

[void()]

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???

I think it's a combination of all. And I think that blindsides a lot of folks. It is difficult
to draw a congruent thought process out of several exclusive notions.

About nearly agree with Fran on the issue. It's been decided in Germany. We can debate
all we want, what is, is.

I am not saying a small group of like minded folks cannot make a difference. They can and
often have. It seems irrelevant though, as in kicking a dead horse, to argue over something
done & dusted.

[darkeyes]

I think it's a combination of all. And I think that blindsides a lot of folks. It is difficult
to draw a congruent thought process out of several exclusive notions.

About nearly agree with Fran on the issue. It's been decided in Germany. We can debate
all we want, what is, is.

I am not saying a small group of like minded folks cannot make a difference. They can and
often have. It seems irrelevant though, as in kicking a dead horse, to argue over something
done & dusted.
Completely off topic but to pick up on what Mars said about the appendix.... and no, I dont want an argy bargy 'bout whether or not it is useful...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-appendix-does-have-a-use--rebooting-the-gut-396277.html

[elian]

Typically we only remove body parts if the condition is life threatening. I can see full well if it caused an infection or constriction and needed to be snipped later in life. I dunno, I'm kinda partial to my spleen, and I would be kinda partial to the full foreskin on my penis if I had it but I'm not going to accuse my parents of abuse for having it removed.

It's sort of like the people that I meet every once in a while in December that make sure to wish me a Merry CHRISTMAS (I understand that ultimately they are well-wishes and usually respond in kind) or parents thinking that their child will go to hell if they are not baptized as soon as they are born.. hmm.. All things aside, the church has a very interesting business model.

Another tangent, what do you say to your child if they are "different" than everybody else?

[darkeyes]

Typically we only remove body parts if the condition is life threatening. I can see full well if it caused an infection or constriction and needed to be snipped later in life. I dunno, I'm kinda partial to my spleen, and I would be kinda partial to the full foreskin on my penis if I had it but I'm not going to accuse my parents of abuse for having it removed.

It's sort of like the people that I meet every once in a while in December that make sure to wish me a Merry CHRISTMAS (I understand that ultimately they are well-wishes and usually respond in kind) or parents thinking that their child will go to hell if they are not baptized as soon as they are born.. hmm.. All things aside, the church has a very interesting business model.

Another tangent, what do you say to your child if they are "different" than everybody else?
What u say Elian is what we say.. or at least it is our way... u say to them that everyone is different, everyone is unique, it is how we are made... and never to be ashamed of who and what you are.. :)

[elian]

That brings up an interesting point, children model the behavior of their parents so sometimes an issue really is only an issue to a child if they see that their parents are upset about it. All things being equal, if I was a child and all my peers were circumcised then I wouldn't think that anything was wrong - at least not until someone made a big deal about it.

[Long Duck Dong]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/8323256/Defending-FGM

I have a reason for posting that link... and it has to do with 3 paragraphs within it

In December 2012, this practice - now condemned as Female Genital Mutilation - came under an official ban by a UN Resolution, at the same time that the Hastings Centre Report, a leading biotethics journal, published an advisory statement dispelling many of the popular myths about female genital surgeries. Yet, in recent years, all over the internet and in Western women's magazines I see glossy advertisements of white women who have undergone what is now popularised as Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS).
Doctors, including gynecologists with no surgery background, can charge thousands of dollars for procedures very similar to what I underwent and which the World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies as Type II Mutilation. I do find this puzzling. African women have been berated for over thirty years now for "mutilating" our own and our daughters' genitals. Medical practitioners are prohibited from performing these surgeries under clinical environments, even when requested by adult African women. But, white Australian girls as young as 14 and 11 can obtain "labiaplasty" underwritten by the National Health Service in local hospitals?
According to WHO, "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". So, how can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organisations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM, yet turn a blind eye and even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive procedures on Western (mostly white) women, under the guise of cosmetic surgery?


its mutilation when people are opposed to it, its cosmetic / labiaplasty when its requested......

[Durain]

All I have to say to this is....I don't really see any disadvantage to getting circumcised. My parents had it done to me when I was still a newborn and thank god because I would not want to have to deal with it myself and having to remember the pain, and I'm not even Jewish or Muslim.

All I know is that this practice has gone on in religion for a long time, from what little I have read its a tradition as old as mankind itself and even people not of the religion get it done because I would assume it comes with a lot of benefits. In fact I have read though many of the benefits and while I am sure they are not all true, even if only a couple are true it seems worth the risk.

I'm not sure if this was posted already because I can't read every comment and open every link, but this seems clear cut: http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

One thing I will highlight from it is that being circumcised prevents a lot of issues that can come later in life. And the motto already said in here was "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Well what about "Prevention is the best cure."?

[tenni]

Post 186

I have reposted post 186 as its own thread. This thread is about religious (male) circumcision and not female cultural circumcision/female genital cosmetic surgery.

Post 186 is off topic of this thread imo but serious enough to deserve its own space. This thread has been emotive and confusing enough without muddying the issue.

[Long Duck Dong]

I have laid a complaint with drew....tenni... you had no right to start a new thread in the main forum, with that post and using my name, as I have no intention of posting in your thread and you had no right to try and dictate who can post what in the forum

[darkeyes]

I have laid a complaint with drew....tenni... you had no right to start a new thread in the main forum, with that post and using my name, as I have no intention of posting in your thread and you had no right to try and dictate who can post what in the forum
Honestly.. u are so touchy and the complaint so childish... Tenni has every right even although it isn't something I would choose to do. You can argue that he lacked manners in not asking or informing you of his intention, but when push comes to shove, no one has the right to stop a person quoting anything once in the public domain. Many people quote a post from another person out of one thread and into another on this site and have done since its earliest days,, and many newspaper and magazine articles are inspired by a quote from another person... and the quote is there bold as brass leading the article... and it is not unknown in books either... it is a common thing in both fiction and non-fiction literature and an even more common occurrence in the written media... not least the political written media..

I don't remember a thread being started in this way but it is tenni's post quoting ur post to begin a thread.. once a person has posted it is no longer her or his property and others may use it till their heart is content..

[Long Duck Dong]

yeah I asked drew to delete the thread so that way tenni could repost it without using my words, I just have no interest in using the thread he created for me and others to post in as he doesn't want us discussing something in this thread.... and in fact I am not interested in debating FGM, its tenni that is going on about that.... so he can go post his thread without dragging me into it

now if you read that I posted... I was not drawing attention to FGM, i was drawing attention to the way that people interpret it in the same way that people view circumcision.... as circumcision is being portrayed as a cultural / religious aspect... but there is a medical and body modding aspect to circumcision, so there is more to it than is being looked at.....

we do use the understanding that right of choice is something that belongs to each person, and I respect your stance that children have the right of choice... however you step to one side to justify subjecting a child to surgery.... and fran... pain and suffering is still pain and suffering, no matter what way a person wants to justify their actions.... and using the term * its to improve their health and wellbeing * only works if it does improve it, but for many children, it merely prolongs their suffering......

as the lady in the article says, what she saw and experienced, doesn't match what she was told it was like..... and that is much like in the ways of circumcision.... and yes there are horror stories galore, but there are stories of people that have not seen the traumatic experiences or experienced them and all too often their opinions and experiences are being dismissed as irrelevant..... we have even had some adult males in this site, post about their adult male circumcisions and were told to basically fuck off, by people that were anti circumcision advocates......

my reason for posting the article ??? to show that even the UN can not oppose something without strong emotionally charged wording, that others find to be offensive and insulting.... yet in this thread, it would be the female that would be told she is too sensitive.....

honestly, i am not sure that there is ever going to be a compromise as the debate against circumcision rests on the basis of strong, emotionally charged wording and the dismissing of peoples personal experiences that are not full of strong, emotional energy... but a simple and quiet peace.....

[darkeyes]

I do think u r touchy... ur post and its link does ask some very pertinent questions and really I have no idea why u object to tenni using it.. I am not criticising u in any way because of what u posted please understand that, but we all use our own words as best we can but sometimes there is a form of words already in existence which suits our purpose and is convenient. The link u gave was your way and the quotation from it; quoting u is tenni's. Tenni is partly right that as such it has no direct bearing on this thread but there is a crossover which is important. I do think it best for the issue to be given its own thread because it is a completely different issue and so the new thread should be discussed as a stand alone thread... how the OP on the new thread raised the issue is unimportant.. that it has been is....:)

[tenni]

Post 186

32 words from LDD
264 words from the article. (not including the link)

Just who/what is being quoted in the new thread?

LDD or the article?

Once again, LDD turns a thread not about LDD to be about the "victim" LDD.

That is one interesting "skill".

[Long Duck Dong]

I do think u r touchy... ur post and its link does ask some very pertinent questions and really I have no idea why u object to tenni using it.. I am not criticising u in any way because of what u posted please understand that, but we all use our own words as best we can but sometimes there is a form of words already in existence which suits our purpose and is convenient. The link u gave was your way and the quotation from it; quoting u is tenni's. Tenni is partly right that as such it has no direct bearing on this thread but there is a crossover which is important. I do think it best for the issue to be given its own thread because it is a completely different issue and so the new thread should be discussed as a stand alone thread... how the OP on the new thread raised the issue is unimportant.. that it has been is....:)

exactly, my post does ask some very pertinent questions...i have no interest in discussing the article outside of this thread as I am only interested in the ethical dilemma and conflict of interest aspects and asking the questions I did.... so the other thread and anything associated with that thread, has nothing to do with me as its about FGM and tenni's delibrate actions in adding my intials to the op then referring to me again in his second post in his thread Interestingly, the person who originally posted the above is not interested in the topic. This topic is as uncomfortable to explore as male circumcision.

if you wonder why I am so touchy as you put it... maybe now you can see why.....



Post 186

32 words from LDD
264 words from the article. (not including the link)

Just who/what is being quoted in the new thread?

LDD or the article?

Once again, LDD turns a thread not about LDD to be about the "victim" LDD.

That is one interesting "skill".

[tenni]

“my post does ask some very pertinent questions”
What are these questions as they relate to the thread topic of religious male circumcision?
(I read no question in the 32 words posted by LDD in post 186. I read a question in the article that relates to females but not religious male circumcision. The article does not link female procedures to religious male circumcision. There is no reference to religious male circumcision in the article at all. The question in the article is not pertinent to this thread but is important and deserving of its own thread)


“only interested in the ethical dilemma and conflict of interest aspects “
What is the ethical dilemma of the article as it relates to religious male circumcision?

What is the conflict of interest in the article as relating to religious male circumcision?
(I hope that you are aware of the meaning of "conflict of interest")

Please articulate your thoughts clearer if not in the first place, communicate clearer now.

[chicagom]

nutme is backkkkkkkkk!!!!!!

[darkeyes]

is that who it is, Chica? Thought I recognised the style..:eek2: Still constructive I see.:cutelaugh

[chicagom]

Just trying to be helpful

[Brian]

Just trying to be helpful

:suave:

- Drew :paw:

[ExSailor]

When you write "pre empted by state law", I got the impression that circumcision is legal but was there actually a state law before what Gov Brown did about circumcision? Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man. This has been known about him for decades yet that coward still stays deeply closeted and even married a woman when everyone knows he's gay.
Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems. Actually Jamie there are Jews and Moslems who are against circumcision and refuse to mutilate their son or daughter's genitals in the name of a barbaric and non-consensual outdated silly religious tradition. Mutilating a child or infant's genitals is NOT the same as someone getting their ears pierced. :rolleyes: Researchers found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys. One reason: Circumcised penises can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to non-snipped members, according to a study published in the British Journal of Urology International. Circumcision, which is male genital mutilation, is neural and vascular damage to the penis. As circumcision has no standards, the damage varies wildly from individual to individual. This is clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis. They vary in depth and location, being anywhere from the base to the glans. Most of the time, the loss of sensitivity is 75%, but it can be much more, depending on the specific damage. "Adults who undergo circumcision report less-satisfying sex, reduced sensitivity and erectile function, difficulty with intromission and increased premature ejaculation." ---------from Nature Clinical Practice Urology 20 January 2009
P.S. I would love to see a poll on what type of penis people prefer. Cut or uncut. I am voting that the good majority will say cut. Circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright. The majority of the men in the world are intact with a foreskin and have no issues with having a foreskin.

[tenni]

"Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man."

Really? How would any one know that unless they are in there giving blow jobs to Mr. Brown? As a bisexual activist rather than a gay activist why is it anyone's business? In a free non bigoted world freedom of sexual preference/disclosure would be respected in a politician.

I suspect that anyone who uses the term "closet queen" as a pejorative frequently seems to me that they are really a gay troll or at the least a person immersed in old gay politics? Troll like in the sense that most of their posts offer little intelligent thought and reflection on how bisexual activism differs from narrow minded gay queen catty chat. Trolls bring back controversial threads to still up merde. Demanding conformity to gay political activistism of the 70-90's. Adherence to gay political thought rather than bisexual political thought that permits much more promotion of freedom of choice as to whomever one choses to be sexual /romantic with regardless of their gender. Reading the threads here you find many promoting choice as to who we are sexual with. There is a philosophy of permissiveness and tolerance rather than slurring a person for their sexual lifestyle choice as to how they wish to live their lives.

Nope not much of a bisexual activist at all is the poster? I don't know Mr Brown's sexuality and a bisexual activist wouldn't care to slur him for his choices. Old 60's bitchy gay queens in their figurative semantic rainbow sequined drag queen uniforms might though. They haven't spent much time noticing that things are changing in the bisexual world. Bisexual activism is not the same as gay activism of the 70's. Promoting bisexual uniqueness from gay uniqueness would be more in line with a bisexual activist imo. Bisexual activists do not need to use gay language and politics.

It is all fine to decide and promote your view on circumcision but lets not be too bitter that Brown went against your wishes.

[darkeyes]

Jerry Brown is a total closet queen and is a gay man. This has been known about him for decades yet that coward still stays deeply closeted and even married a woman when everyone knows he's gay.
Everyone knows? Really? I didn't know, an' am not sure I do even now... but neither do I care.. and neither should u... pity u ruin a half decent post with a hysterical rant which has nowt do with the matter under discussion...

...an' as for Velorex... whether they say cut or uncut rather depends on the country in which u live... here it would be at least 80% uncut I would imagine being an overwhelmingly uncircumcised society... and the same would be found in most countries on the planet... so don't count on u being right... .com and the US are not very representative of the great mass of humanity... only a tidgy lil part of it...

[ExSailor]

Really? How would any one know that unless they are in there giving blow jobs to Mr. Brown? As a bisexual activist rather than a gay activist why is it anyone's business? In a free non bigoted world freedom of sexual preference/disclosure would be respected in a politician.
Everyone knows? Really? I didn't know, an' am not sure I do even now... Both of you must not pay attention to politics or human nature at all. Many people both LGBT and hetero have known all about how Jerry Brown is a total closet queen for decades. His whole "relationship" with Linda Ronstadt and his current "wife" were and are just relationships for show, and now a marriage of convenience that many politicians get into when they are deeply closeted like Jerry Brown is and has been for decades. Closet queen is not an old "gay" term it's just a term for someone like Jerry Brown and other politicians and celebrities who everyone knows are gay, bisexual, or lesbian or hiding a major secret that they think is concealed but it's obvious to everyone but them. They should just admit it instead of being total cowards like they are. LGBT youth who have a lot more to risk than silly politicians and celbrities come out and the argument that politicians and famous people, as well as regular people have "privacy" is an illusion. Tenni I have done more for the bisexual "community" and bisexual people than you and darkeyes ever will, as neither of you are activists at all. Like it or not Tenni bisexual politics, language, and "culture" have been linked to the "gay" "community" and "gay" politics long before the term LGBT was invented or around.

[Mr. Suck]

Why would any woman or man be for male or female genital mutilation? People's genitals were not meant to be altered and just as female circumcision changes the function of the vagina male circumcision changes the function of the penis or how a penis actually should be. Most men and women worldwide have unmutilated genitals and have no issues at all with their genitals. Circumcision or male genital mutilation has been shown to reduce penis length and circumfrence, and a penis that is cut is a lot less sensitive than a penis that has a foreskin because a cut dick has a lot of nerve endings taken away without its owners consent. I have been with cut men who had penises that were dry and the heads were not smooth or fleshy like they are with men who are not cut. Circumcision of an infant or young boy is pointless and it's even more pointless for a silly religious or cultural reason, or a "health" reason since a man's penis is supposed to have a foreskin over it and not be cut.

[NMCowboys]

Pul-eeze, as they say- everyone knows circumcision would be as noncontroversial as pierced ears but for the fact that it is associated in Western cultures with Jews, and in Europe in recent years, Moslems.

Mutilating an infant or young girl or boy's genitals for religious reasons, let alone hygienic or cultural reasons is silly and pointless.

:rolleyes: Circumcision or genital mutilation is not akin to piercing someone's ears, even if you want to pretend that it is. Pierced ears can heal up, while a mutilated penis stays mutilated after a circumcision and even a "foreskin restoration" will not make the hundreds of thousands of sensitive nerve endings and highly erogenous foreskin actually come back.

It's not Anti-Semetic, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Islamic to be against circumcision. A person can still be Jewish or a follower of Islam yet not be for genital mutilation of infant boys. In many European countries there are lots of Jews who do not circumcise or mutilate the genitals of their infant boys.

An infant or very young child does not know the Torah, Talmud, or Koran from a phonebook. Plus it should be up to the owner of the penis or vagina and not some religious leader who likes to pretend they're a medical professional when really they're just a practitioner of involuntary genital mutilation.

I found this post and it has to be reposted here since it's chock full of facts about how circumcision is male genital mutilation, and how majorly mutilated and damaged a penis is after it has been cut.

Eventually circumcision or male genital mutilation will become a thing of the past since most men in the world have intact genitals and have zero issues at all with them, and most cultures around the world that do not circumcise their sons see it for what it is: genital mutilation.


Circumcision of a penis is genital mutilation and it detracts or takes away the natural astheticism of a penis the way it is supposed to be, and when it's done on an infant or young boy it's done without consent and just as bad as female circumcision.

Also there are health issues associated with circumcision such as how if a man is cut he is a lot more likely to have erectile dysfunction, not to mention how circumcision makes a man's penis dry, less sensitive, smaller in length and circumference, and a lot of nerve endings are removed. I guess the term I'd say that a cut penis is that it's lacking something major which is a completely whole foreskin.

I have seen some men who had half of their foreskin taken off and the rest left on but it begs the question why do anything to it at all in the first place? I feel bad for cut men since they have a penis that's far less sensitive than those of us who are in the majority and have a foreskin.

When I have been single I did not refuse men who were cut but I felt bad for them since they didn't have a choice and their genitals were mutilated. Men should make this decision on their own bodies themselves, not have it made for them when they're an infant.

I have met a lot of men who are cut who have told me how they are not happy with being cut and how they wished they'd been left intact instead of getting their foreskin literally ripped off which is what happens during a circumcision. Yes you can see the scar from genital mutilation on all circumcised men, and you can tell that the penis is not supposed to be that way. You do not have to be promiscuous, a "slut", or have had lots of male sexual partners in order to tell this.

Or as I once wrote before, "Having sex with a guy that's cut is like having sex with a woman who is missing her clitoral hood and who has mutilated labia" as both female and male circumcision are equally as barbaric and are both mutilating someone's genitals. A circumcision scar represents conformity, abuse, genital mutilation, and in some cases pointless religious dogma.

It's 2013 there's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals. Eventually the practice of mutilating a infant or boy's genitals will die off and become illegal, since worldwide most men are intact, have no issues with having an intact penis with a foreskin, and there are even Jews and Muslims who are not blinded by religious dogma who are against doing this to their sons.

I found this image and it shows just what exactly is lost and just how majorly desensitized a penis is when it's cut or mutilated during a circumcision. This is a graphic that shows how severely less sensitive a cut penis is compared to an intact penis. It also references a study.

http://i.imgur.com/SgS9q.png

This is an excellent article which has more reasons why genital mutilation of boys should be illegal and a thing of the past. http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/dec/06/1?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

[jimdawg]

Mutilating an infant or young girl or boy's genitals for religious reasons, let alone hygienic or cultural reasons is silly and pointless.

:rolleyes: Circumcision or genital mutilation is not akin to piercing someone's ears, even if you want to pretend that it is. Pierced ears can heal up, while a mutilated penis stays mutilated after a circumcision and even a "foreskin restoration" will not make the hundreds of thousands of sensitive nerve endings and highly erogenous foreskin actually come back.

It's not Anti-Semetic, Anti-Jewish, or Anti-Islamic to be against circumcision. A person can still be Jewish or a follower of Islam yet not be for genital mutilation of infant boys. In many European countries there are lots of Jews who do not circumcise or mutilate the genitals of their infant boys.

How is it not Anti-Semitic, Anti-Jewish or Anti-Islamic to try and uproot the religion by banning the views of male entry into religion? In many European countries, most of the Jews were simply killed. More fled out. Many refused to admit Judaism for fear that they would be killed.

Most of these posts are NOT REMOTELY DIFFERENT FROM VERY REAL HISTORICAL NAZI PROPAGANDA. Just because you say you're not anti-Semitic doesn't mean you're not anti-Semitic. Just because you say you're not anti-Islamic doesn't mean you're not anti-Islamic. I understand that most of you peddling the "BAN THIS RITE" idea don't think you're being racist or anti-religious. Trust me, I get that you think your intentions are good. But they're deeply misguided and ignorant of how these things have historically gone. Jews who do not get circumcisions choose not to. It isn't because of some ban. Jews who can't get circumcisions tend to flee the countries that ban it when they get the chance. I see no reason Muslims wouldn't react this way either. The side effect of this policy would be ethnic cleansing. Maybe you could argue that, because you don't support their removal from the land, you don't believe it is ethnic cleansing. It is still ethnic cleansing because at the end of the day, you'll be left with a land depopulated of a certain history-Islamic or Jewish-aside from of a handful who voluntarily or to get ahead socially left the flock. And that's the point: You're not giving people the option of leaving the flock on their own, you're giving them only the option to leave the flock or go to jail. And that...is wrong. On so many levels.

So great. Cosmetic surgery for children should be banned. Unless you like it. And that's not remotely anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic.

Are you joking?

I have posted real historical examples of when banning religious practices-right or wrong-backfires. It is amazing that white people seem to think they're the most civilized on the planet all the time. Last I checked, most people in the Americas weren't white in 1492. Not by modern definitions, anyway. Nor were they black. Somehow these non-white and non-blacks got depopulated severely. In the process, European civilization was spread; native languages are moribund. Native religions are dead. Many were banned for human sacrifice. That's a bit funny in the sense that, the Christians decided to sacrifice humans quite literally to their god so that he might end human sacrifice.

And now some of their descendents are coming around again telling all of us non-Christians that we're mutilated and evil. And our opinions are suddenly supposed to change, we're supposed to agree with all of you en masse, because, at least in terms of us Jews-yeah, we're white-we've never faced a genocide by people who have said that circumcision is mutilation and we're evil. And our practices for ritual slaughter were evil. And our morals and traditions were non-compatible and we would always be an anti-social element. And...lord...all those christians people who tolerate this? They're nothing but a bunch of Judaizers (Yeah, read your bible). They are sinners for going to the synagogue (in some spiritual degree). Yes, the world has come and gone and seen these arguments, and strangely, NOT ONE GENOCIDE HAS EVER OCCURRED.

Oh, but you're atheist, or at least not Christian? Guess what: Rosenberg and Himmler were Pagans. And Stalin-lord knows he wasn't remotely anti-Semitic, right?-Stalin was obviously not an atheist. And he didn't have a plan to deport and resettle all Jews to Siberia. That thing called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, you know, in one of those areas of Siberia that had no infrastructure to support that many people suddenly moving there? Yeah. That clearly was trustworthy. Yup. And Positive Christianity-which was supported by Hitler-was so obviously non-Christian that the only way anyone could embrace it was by coming off with no genuine religious belief (AKA: Atheism-inspired Nazi Christianity). And before I turn into a freakshow just talking about Christians, remember: Torquemata was born a Jew, and how many expulsions occurred during the Almohads, anyway?

Yeah. On that note: Are you joking?

The reality is most religious Christians have no want to ban circumcision in the modern world because 1. they're not opposed to it as much as opposed to those who want to ban it and 2. Despite the firebrand rhetoric that comes out of certain people, most Christians are peaceful and do not want to start a program of genocide, nor do they want to banish history. Want to end circumcision? Get people who support ritual circumcision to give up the practice. Because...like...we have so much reason to trust your arguments, even if they're correct, because we've obviously never heard them before.

You want to know why I'm so defensive about this? Because all the people who supported stuff like this are the reason I'm alive.

Why? Simple. All of you made my family's lives in Europe so miserable that we got up and left for America-though even that wasn't always voluntary. I know of one ancestor who was exiled.

And...because we had to leave for America, we didn't get killed in the Holocaust, by the people who were making the arguments back then.

Until you have that perspective, you will simply never understand the opinion of us uncivilized people that you're trying to civilize. And you will never win the argument without resorting to banning the religion and genocide. After all, what progressive in Europe would've believed what was going on in Europe until the camps were liberated without first being in the camps or getting a note from someone already in them? And by "the camps" I mean Soviet camps as well. I would rather die than live in a world where I was termed a mutilated pariah and treated as such until my death. And I know about millions more who feel the same. "Never Again" doesn't mean preventing industrialized death. It means so much more than that. If you think that the biggest sin of the holocaust was the death camps, you clearly don't understand the holocaust. The death camps were a side effect of the program, not the program itself.

And I think if a bunch of people went after you trying to snip your foreskin off and passing a foreskin ban, you'd suddenly figure out what this argument is really about for those who disagree with you; only if you can imagine such a society where having a foreskin made you a criminal would you understand a society that states that following a religious rite makes you a criminal.

[darkeyes]

How is it not Anti-Semitic, Anti-Jewish or Anti-Islamic to try and uproot the religion by banning the views of male entry into religion? In many European countries, most of the Jews were simply killed. More fled out. Many refused to admit Judaism for fear that they would be killed.

Most of these posts are NOT REMOTELY DIFFERENT FROM VERY REAL HISTORICAL NAZI PROPAGANDA. Just because you say you're not anti-Semitic doesn't mean you're not anti-Semitic. Just because you say you're not anti-Islamic doesn't mean you're not anti-Islamic. I understand that most of you peddling the "BAN THIS RITE" idea don't think you're being racist or anti-religious. Trust me, I get that you think your intentions are good. But they're deeply misguided and ignorant of how these things have historically gone. Jews who do not get circumcisions choose not to. It isn't because of some ban. Jews who can't get circumcisions tend to flee the countries that ban it when they get the chance. I see no reason Muslims wouldn't react this way either. The side effect of this policy would be ethnic cleansing. Maybe you could argue that, because you don't support their removal from the land, you don't believe it is ethnic cleansing. It is still ethnic cleansing because at the end of the day, you'll be left with a land depopulated of a certain history-Islamic or Jewish-aside from of a handful who voluntarily or to get ahead socially left the flock. And that's the point: You're not giving people the option of leaving the flock on their own, you're giving them only the option to leave the flock or go to jail. And that...is wrong. On so many levels.

So great. Cosmetic surgery for children should be banned. Unless you like it. And that's not remotely anti-Islamic or anti-Semitic.

Are you joking?

I have posted real historical examples of when banning religious practices-right or wrong-backfires. It is amazing that white people seem to think they're the most civilized on the planet all the time. Last I checked, most people in the Americas weren't white in 1492. Not by modern definitions, anyway. Nor were they black. Somehow these non-white and non-blacks got depopulated severely. In the process, European civilization was spread; native languages are moribund. Native religions are dead. Many were banned for human sacrifice. That's a bit funny in the sense that, the Christians decided to sacrifice humans quite literally to their god so that he might end human sacrifice.

And now some of their descendents are coming around again telling all of us non-Christians that we're mutilated and evil. And our opinions are suddenly supposed to change, we're supposed to agree with all of you en masse, because, at least in terms of us Jews-yeah, we're white-we've never faced a genocide by people who have said that circumcision is mutilation and we're evil. And our practices for ritual slaughter were evil. And our morals and traditions were non-compatible and we would always be an anti-social element. And...lord...all those christians people who tolerate this? They're nothing but a bunch of Judaizers (Yeah, read your bible). They are sinners for going to the synagogue (in some spiritual degree). Yes, the world has come and gone and seen these arguments, and strangely, NOT ONE GENOCIDE HAS EVER OCCURRED.

Oh, but you're atheist, or at least not Christian? Guess what: Rosenberg and Himmler were Pagans. And Stalin-lord knows he wasn't remotely anti-Semitic, right?-Stalin was obviously not an atheist. And he didn't have a plan to deport and resettle all Jews to Siberia. That thing called the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, you know, in one of those areas of Siberia that had no infrastructure to support that many people suddenly moving there? Yeah. That clearly was trustworthy. Yup. And Positive Christianity-which was supported by Hitler-was so obviously non-Christian that the only way anyone could embrace it was by coming off with no genuine religious belief (AKA: Atheism-inspired Nazi Christianity). And before I turn into a freakshow just talking about Christians, remember: Torquemata was born a Jew, and how many expulsions occurred during the Almohads, anyway?

Yeah. On that note: Are you joking?

The reality is most religious Christians have no want to ban circumcision in the modern world because 1. they're not opposed to it as much as opposed to those who want to ban it and 2. Despite the firebrand rhetoric that comes out of certain people, most Christians are peaceful and do not want to start a program of genocide, nor do they want to banish history. Want to end circumcision? Get people who support ritual circumcision to give up the practice. Because...like...we have so much reason to trust your arguments, even if they're correct, because we've obviously never heard them before.

You want to know why I'm so defensive about this? Because all the people who supported stuff like this are the reason I'm alive.

Why? Simple. All of you made my family's lives in Europe so miserable that we got up and left for America-though even that wasn't always voluntary. I know of one ancestor who was exiled.

And...because we had to leave for America, we didn't get killed in the Holocaust, by the people who were making the arguments back then.

Until you have that perspective, you will simply never understand the opinion of us uncivilized people that you're trying to civilize. And you will never win the argument without resorting to banning the religion and genocide. After all, what progressive in Europe would've believed what was going on in Europe until the camps were liberated without first being in the camps or getting a note from someone already in them? And by "the camps" I mean Soviet camps as well. I would rather die than live in a world where I was termed a mutilated pariah and treated as such until my death. And I know about millions more who feel the same. "Never Again" doesn't mean preventing industrialized death. It means so much more than that. If you think that the biggest sin of the holocaust was the death camps, you clearly don't understand the holocaust. The death camps were a side effect of the program, not the program itself.

And I think if a bunch of people went after you trying to snip your foreskin off and passing a foreskin ban, you'd suddenly figure out what this argument is really about for those who disagree with you; only if you can imagine such a society where having a foreskin made you a criminal would you understand a society that states that following a religious rite makes you a criminal.
All this tosh tells us is that our ancestors were anti Christian for stopping witch burning and whichever denomination of Christianity for abolishing burning of heretics... of course many were these things but mostly it was Christians who stopped these things from happening., not heretics, witches, agnostics or atheists.. equally we have no right to stop the persecution of gays and bisexuals because it is anti islamic or jewish or Christian... are u honestly telling us that religion is unchangeable and that no one has any right to oppose religious belief? Is it so fucking perfect that it must stay the same ad infinitum? Good God...

..and I have never tried to say that male circumcision should be stopped.. I am saying it should not be carried out on anyone without their express informed consent when they are sufficiently mature to be able to rationalise it and decide for himself except for pressing medical need..... a different thing.. but of course for that I and people who think like me are anti Semitic which is also tosh...

[rabbit16]

Going through this same issue in my family now. Just had a son a few days ago. My father is furious that we aren't doing circumcision. Not because of religion but because of all the issues he WILL have according to him. He has now involved everyone in our extended families rather then have an adult conversation with us about it. Either way-we are not giving in unless out son WANTS or NEEDS it done. Until that time. This has nothing to do with religion (yes we are religious though). I believe a person should need or want it done. Not just have it done to them. I won't do this to my daughters nor my son. I won't pierce anyones ears either until THEY want it done.

[darkeyes]

Going through this same issue in my family now. Just had a son a few days ago. My father is furious that we aren't doing circumcision. Not because of religion but because of all the issues he WILL have according to him. He has now involved everyone in our extended families rather then have an adult conversation with us about it. Either way-we are not giving in unless out son WANTS or NEEDS it done. Until that time. This has nothing to do with religion (yes we are religious though). I believe a person should need or want it done. Not just have it done to them. I won't do this to my daughters nor my son. I won't pierce anyones ears either until THEY want it done.
u r luffly...:love87:

[jimdawg]

I'm saying banning a religion will result in genocide. Which is what you're doing. You're not talking about censoring a religion, you're talking about preventing its currently understood practice from EVER being done.

That said, there are numerous parts of the bible that almost no one takes seriously anymore. Why? It wasn't some stupid ban posed by a bunch of chauvinistic pseudo-progressives who say "We're progressive, so we can't be chauvinistic." There is a radical difference between saying something stupid and actually harming, say, gays and bisexuals; and most of society-even the anti-gay types-know injustice when they actually see it and can put themselves in others shoes. But even that is a false argument. Have you ever hung out in an American inner city or a European city-suburb and heard all the anti-gay bullshit that goes on? And have you ever thought how much was religiously inspired? Or does that not even compute as it doesn't fit into your world view? No?

How can you possibly understand this argument from a standpoint of not always supporting your own political point of view when you can't put yourself in the opposition's shoes? That's what I don't get. I have nothing wrong with rabbit not getting their son circumcised and I think he's right to stand up to his father and he has a very different point of view than the rest of you. That's a matter of freedom. It is a statement of breaking with the norm of society, and actually putting yourself in the shoes of the minority. Something a lot of the rabid anti-circumcision folk, in particular in Europe, can't ever understand. He has educated himself and decided the procedure is a bad choice. He will give up this tradition without resorting to hostility, and it won't end up with people feeling persecuted because they're less civilized than everyone else.

And you aren't saying circumcision should be stopped, you're saying a religious rite, necessary to the modern interpretation, should be banned without a shift in evolution, and clearly ignoring the concept across monotheism of Martyrdom.

What I'm saying is you're to a minority the descendant of those who burnt Christians, absolutely, while burning Jews in Judea. That you're the descendent of those who wiped out entire civilizations and overt genocides. It isn't a matter of white guilt as YOU didn't do it or even if you're not really a descendant either. However, you can understand why WE, having heard YOUR arguments before from others, are DEEPLY DISTURBED by it. You might be more liberal...honestly...you might really be. But in terms of shrill and tone...it sounds no different than National Socialist arguments. Or Communist arguments. And since you look like someone from those areas who supported this before...can't you understand why us minorities are so hostile to you getting involved? Us Jews have faced enormous persecution from non-Democratic Socialists in the 20th century. Why should us Jews believe them now?

[NMCowboys]

There are Jews and Muslim people who refuse to mutilate the genitals of their sons. Their children are still Jewish or Muslim except they don't have their penis mutilated. Getting your penis mutilated in Judaism or Islam is not necessary to practicing either of those religions at all.

A Jewish or Muslim person who forces their son into getting involuntary genital mutilation done on his penis is against their son's rights and free will as a human being.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-Against-Circumcision/165424110207450

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

https://www.facebook.com/muslimsagainstcirc

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

http://therealsingapore.com/content/young-singaporean-muslim-i-am-now-against-circumcision

http://www.beyondthebris.com/

Even in Israel not all Jews there are for male genital mutilation of their infant sons.

The whole practice of male genital mutilation or circumcision is barbaric, and a silly stone age outdated silly custom of genital mutilation that is best left in the past since it's pointless, and not needed if someone really wants to practice Judaism or Islam as a religion of their choice.

Getting rid of male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not banning those religions, calling for genocide, or telling people they can't practice or believe in those religions if they want to.

[jimdawg]

There are Jews and Muslim people who refuse to mutilate the genitals of their sons. Their children are still Jewish or Muslim except they don't have their penis mutilated. Getting your penis mutilated in Judaism or Islam is not necessary to practicing either of those religions at all.

A Jewish or Muslim person who forces their son into getting involuntary genital mutilation done on his penis is against their son's rights and free will as a human being.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jews-Against-Circumcision/165424110207450

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

https://www.facebook.com/muslimsagainstcirc

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

http://therealsingapore.com/content/young-singaporean-muslim-i-am-now-against-circumcision

http://www.beyondthebris.com/

Even in Israel not all Jews there are for male genital mutilation of their infant sons.

The whole practice of male genital mutilation or circumcision is barbaric, and a silly stone age outdated silly custom of genital mutilation that is best left in the past since it's pointless, and not needed if someone really wants to practice Judaism or Islam as a religion of their choice.

Getting rid of male genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam is not banning those religions, calling for genocide, or telling people they can't practice or believe in those religions if they want to.

And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?

The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.

The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.

[NMCowboys]

And there were Jews that fought for the Nazis...what's your point?

The fact you refuse to call it by its proper name and call it the loaded "mutilation" demonstrates that you have no interest in trying to rationalize the practice away. You're actively demonizing Jews and Muslims, and thus, you are indeed calling for ethnic cleansing.

The fact you can't see this is why sane people will disagree with you, and if a majority of people do agree with you, it'll only be in a state of genocide.

Where did I write anything about saying that genocide of any type is OK, should be done, or permissible?

Secondly I am not demonizing Jews or Muslims. You fail to realize that there are Jews and Muslims who do not mutilate the genitals of their infant or young sons and this does not make them akin to "Nazis" or not devout Jews or Muslims except in your opinion. :rolleyes:

Circumcision of an infant or young boy is mutilation of his genitals.

Infants and young boys have no choice in the matter and they're having their genitals mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon/doctor, or by the choice of their parents.

Men should have the right to choose circumcision as adults if they want it-or they can get a full castration if they want that when they are an adult and it's their chioce-, not have the choice of having their genitals mutilated forced upon them. Infant circumcision without consent or immediate medical justification is an unjustified violation of basic human rights, that shares more in common with ancient coming-of-age rituals than responsible or necessary medical practice.

Imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find yourself tied to your bed and rendered mute, your naked genitals exposed to the harsh glare of hospital lights. Your parents have decided that some skin should be hacked from your penis; perhaps so you can be forced into their religion, perhaps because they don't trust you to clean yourself in the shower, or perhaps simply because they think your penis should look more like your father's.

If you don't like the thought of this happening to you, if this offends your belief in self-determination or the rights you have over what happens to your body, then how can you justify this practice being inflicted on infants and young boys?

Deliberately inflicting injury and mutilation on a baby or young boy's genitals in order to enforce their conformity with a religion, or to satisfy their parents' views on what a penis should look like, is a sick act. It has no place in a modern society. Infant circumcision - regardless of gender - should be stopped and outlawed.

Based on your arguments you probably believe that female circumcision-which is just as bad as male circumcision is-is permissible since it's practiced by Muslims, and certain African people and cultures who have experienced genocide practice it, so it's OK and not really genital mutilation. :rolleyes:

[jimdawg]

Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.

You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.

I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.

And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS PRESENTLY UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND PRESENT-DAY JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO THIS BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.

And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."

Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous. The only reason I'd actually have a son of mine circumcised? First, I'm circumcised and I really don't think it is that big of a deal. Second, it is to show that people like you can not tell me what to do, and it is a right-familiar determination-that I will die for, and millions have died for, needlessly. I really don't care if I have a son and he isn't circumcised until I hear people like you talk on the topic.

[NMCowboys]

Based on my arguments, a hard ban on female circumcision is stupid and produces responses from women such as "We don't see the problem" which is common in areas where it is practiced, actually.

You're assuming my thinking your argument is profoundly stupid means I'm pro-circumcision. No, I'm anti-bigotry, as if you and people like you need to civilize the rest of the world to follow your view of the world.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding your parents thrown in jail because they decided to raise you in the manner of their parents and their parents parents. Rendered mute, your genitals not exposed, but being thrown into a foster home, from breast milk to formula. Perhaps this is to cruel, and you might decide to have a fourth trimester abortion-the parents are unworthy of parenthood, and perhaps the life unworthy of life, perhaps so you can be forced to practice the mandated religion of society, in this case, atheism or Christianity, or perhaps because they don't trust your parents to clean you in the shower when you're younger, or perhaps because they think you shouldn't resemble your father.

I can hit the emotional argument too that has almost NO RELEVANCE ON REALITY. Here's a newsflash: Babies are scared creatures. They're scarred of a lot. They'll cry in the arms of their parents from this fear. Deliberately inflicting mental injury and mental mutilation on a baby or young boy by removing them from their parents in order to enforce YOUR conformity to what you think a body should be is a truly sick act-and throwing people in prison for this has NO PLACE IN A MODERN SOCIETY. Infant circumcision should be outlawed? Newsflash: You're outlawing all modern mainstream (ie: Non-extremist) views of religion in order for your "tokens" of "Good Jews" and "Good Muslims" and on this ground I would recommend reading the Pozen speech (ie: Every German knows a "good Jew" which is why we must conduct genocide in secret). I'm sure you have your lists of a lot of "good minorities" but guess what? We aren't here to please you. That's why I am comparing such Jews to Nazis. It isn't that Jews against circumcision are Nazis at all. It is that your bringing them up reminds me of David Duke bringing up Israel Shahak as both evidence that he is right and as a foil to say he isn't an anti-Semite. And the Germans could've said they weren't so anti-Semitic if they so desired in the war, the same way you're saying you're not demonizing people, by bringing up people who worked for them in authority, like Emil Maurice, or Ehrard Milch, or Bernhard Rogge. Your argument is essentially an "I'm not racist. I have some black friends" argument.

And again, last I checked, circumcision in Europe was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF GENOCIDE and female circumcision in good parts of the world was only ended through MASSIVE PROGRAMS OF COLONIALIZATION AND GENOCIDE. It isn't approval of the religious practice. IT IS A DISAPPROVAL OF YOUR METHODS. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME TERMS PROPAGANDA AS NAZIS DID IN THE 1930S. UNDERSTAND YOU ARE SPEAKING IN THE SAME PROPAGANDA AS PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WHITE MAN'S BURDEN. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THEM TO ANY OF US WHO AREN'T OF WHITE CHRISTIAN EXTRACTION. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. AND YOUR SHRILLNESS AND SAYING WE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED-WE HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE AND WE WILL HEAR THIS AGAIN. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY "IT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME" DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS BEFORE. OUTLAWING CIRCUMCISION IS OUTLAWING JUDAISM AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD. FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND JUDAISM. PEOPLE WHO ARE JEWISH WHO DO NOT PRACTICE CIRCUMCISION ARE GROWING AND CHOOSE SUCH LIFESTYLES AND THEY DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM ABANDONING THIS PRACTICE.

And that isn't to say we don't like people of white Christian extraction. We just don't like people of white Christian extraction who want to mutilate our culture in order to save a bunch of babies from problems that haven't historically seemed to be such a big deal, when real problems exist like babies not receiving proper medical treatment or healthcare. You seem to prioritize preventing babies from being raised Muslim or Jewish over preventing them from dying of other health issues. But maybe you think you can cure the world of our Semitism but not of nature. If it was about hostility to people of a white-Christian background, the counter argument would be "It is savagely unethical to allow any babies to go uncircumcised! Let's force them to do it."

Notice the comments about choosing not to get a circumcision? Notice how I react as that's a good thing-a choice made? Yeah. You're trying to say I'm supporting circumcision because I somehow think it is a good practice while again conveniently side stepping the whole problem of your arguments not being new, not being novel, and historically being incredibly dangerous.

Too long. Didn't read.

[jimdawg]

Too long. Didn't read.

Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.

Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?

[jimdawg]

honestly, i am not sure that there is ever going to be a compromise as the debate against circumcision rests on the basis of strong, emotionally charged wording and the dismissing of peoples personal experiences that are not full of strong, emotional energy... but a simple and quiet peace.....

There can be a compromise, I believe, when people realize that reason generally wins out and people seek out the best practices when they're allowed freely to make their own decisions. People in reality are animals, and animals will fight intruders onto their territory-even if that intruder is carrying medical equipment which the animal desperately needs...It is when people make false promises of the benefits of circumcision or shrill arguments about it being this really horrible thing (that most people who have had it for thousands of years haven't complained about) that the emotions flare up. I have noted several times I am a fierce defender of the right to practice circumcision, not because I think it is good, but because historically, bone headed attempts to root out the practice have always backfired, except in cases of overt ethnic cleansing. It is the fact people are so emotional that makes me consider getting my children circumcised-if it was left between me and my family (ie: my parents) I probably would elect to not get a circumsion, for then my parents would be the one encroaching on how I raise my children and again, I believe as a parent, I have much more room for discretion than my parents over my child, let alone my cousins, let alone my friends, let alone complete strangers, let alone people who I don't know saying that I'm screwed up myself that remind me of many things I've luckily only read about in books, or occasionally witnessed in person.

And by that standard, there is no moral equivalence. I'm not going to someone's house shrilly saying all babies should be cut. I'm saying, respect my boundaries, respect my opinions, and then we could have a real discussion regarding concerns over such a practice. I am only intruding if my existence is intrusive as I'm not telling people how they should raise their kids. I am only telling people that their language and actions is counterproductive. And I really believe it is because a bunch of Seleucid Greeks decided 2250 years ago to outlaw circumcision in Judea that I still can't eat pork around my family without an argument. So these things do have a lot of negative consequences that a lot of people don't want to ever think about. And I hate reacting with the "You're of white Christian heritage" reaction but in this case, there's no acknowledgement of why people might be uneasy hearing these exact same arguments from similar political groupings. Without such acknowledgement, we can't discuss sincerely how to limit, reverse and end a disagreeable practice beyond criminalizing the behavior, and thus, turning groups of people de facto into criminals. Or even expand an agreeable practice, if that's what the science so decides (I doubt it would decide that).

[NMCowboys]

Yet reposted? Because you didn't post a lot of stuff before? That's dubious. Methinks you'd rather just argue that people who circumcise should be outlawed and not give a damn about any of the rest of the opinions of us Lebensunwertes Leben because we just "don't get it" and are too inferior to get it...you know, PTSD from the circumcision and all.

Serious question...have you ever read any Nazi propaganda on much of anything?

I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.

[jimdawg]

I'm not falling for your pointless rants, professional victim mentality, or baiting.

My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.

[NMCowboys]

[Greeks decided 2250 years ago to outlaw circumcision in Judea
The Greeks and Romans (or modern day Catholic Italians) had/have the right idea about how circumcision is nothing but pointless genital mutilation.

[darkeyes]

There can be a compromise, I believe, when people realize that reason generally wins out and people seek out the best practices when they're allowed freely to make their own decisions.
Quite.. which is all I have ever argued... it is not I who argues that an infant child is denied his right to choose...;)

[jimdawg]

Quite.. which is all I have ever argued... it is not I who argues that an infant child is denied his right to choose...;)

Then you've mellowed on the topic a little. A ban reflects the notion that choice needs to be taken off the table!

[NMCowboys]

My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.

Who is "we" do you have a hamster in your pocket? Actually I do understand your rants I just refuse to reply to your absurd bigotry. FYI I am not quoting anyone.

Why is it so important to you that male genital mutilation be practiced on infant boys, and boys who are Jewish and Muslim? It's not that major of a necessity for a boy or man to be Jewish or Muslim and have their genitals mutilated.

[NMCowboys]

I hold that male genital mutilation, called circumcision, of children in the USA is indeed illegal, and unconstitutional.

It is illegal to circumcise female minors, and it's even illegal to prick with a pin the genitals of female minors---------so where is "equal protection under the law" for male minors?

If it's wrong to force genital mutilation on female minors, it should be equally illegal to do the same to male minors----it is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such to prohibit circumcision of minors of one sex while allowing it for the other.

In addition, parents are NEVER given complete information about the adverse effects and complications resulting from male genital mutilation---the psychological effects of the mutilation are never discussed or even considered. Each year a lot of infant and young boys die from having their genitals mutilated, and they all get their genitals disfigured when they are mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon, doctor, nurse, etc. The pain for an infant boy going through a mutilation is so bad that they go into complete shock over it. The right of the male child to genital integrity is never considered.

Parents cannot choose to circumcise a female minor in the USA, as in almost all civilized countries, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it to males minors, either.

In addition, there are no standards to male genital mutilation; the damage varies wildly, as clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis, which can appear anywhere from the base to the glans (head of penis) which disfigures the penis. Not only doctors circumcise male minors; nurses and inexperienced medical students can even indiscriminately hack away at the genitals of male babies and rip off the foreskin.


Circumcision is a fraud, male genital mutilation that's involuntarily done to the owner of the penis, and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

The newest (most advanced) medical thinking is there is never a need to amputate the parts of the penis called the foreskin (no more than any NEED to cut off the clitoral hood of a baby girl). But most societies and cultures around the world do not practice male or female genital mutilation and see no need for it, and those boys, girls, men, and women who have their genitals left fully intact are perfectly healthy and fine.

The US so wants to justify what they have done to so many men that the push to pass it on to the next generation continues. There is a cycle of mutilation that needs to be broken. Until then boys and the men they become are being harmed. The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). Most cut guys reach middle age and then problems can and do occur (NUMB dick, and a penis that's totally dry and far less sensitive than a penis that's been left intact with a foreskin). Most guys don't talk about these issues, but it is a fact that most VIAGRA is consumed by cut men. Cut guys are missing out on natural sex and masturbation from the start of sexual activity. Male genital mutilation or circumcision has also been proven to decrease the circumference and length of a man's penis.

MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision) doesn't protect against HIV and other STDs. Many nations that don't mutilate their sons have lower rates of HIV and other STDs than nations that do mutilate their sons. Teaching PROPER sex education is the key to lowering HIV and STD rates. Amputating erogenous tissue, and mutilating an infant or young boy's penis doesn't teach safe sex.

The only person that has the right to cut off erogenous tissue is the owner of that tissue. Any society that allows otherwise is primitive and BARBARIC.

[dafydd]

nutme is backkkkkkkkk!!!!!!

Who the fuck is nutme?

wack clique

[jimdawg]

I hold that male genital mutilation, called circumcision, of children in the USA is indeed illegal, and unconstitutional.

It is illegal to circumcise female minors, and it's even illegal to prick with a pin the genitals of female minors---------so where is "equal protection under the law" for male minors?

If it's wrong to force genital mutilation on female minors, it should be equally illegal to do the same to male minors----it is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such to prohibit circumcision of minors of one sex while allowing it for the other.

In addition, parents are NEVER given complete information about the adverse effects and complications resulting from male genital mutilation---the psychological effects of the mutilation are never discussed or even considered. Each year a lot of infant and young boys die from having their genitals mutilated, and they all get their genitals disfigured when they are mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon, doctor, nurse, etc. The pain for an infant boy going through a mutilation is so bad that they go into complete shock over it. The right of the male child to genital integrity is never considered.

Parents cannot choose to circumcise a female minor in the USA, as in almost all civilized countries, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it to males minors, either.

In addition, there are no standards to male genital mutilation; the damage varies wildly, as clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis, which can appear anywhere from the base to the glans (head of penis) which disfigures the penis. Not only doctors circumcise male minors; nurses and inexperienced medical students can even indiscriminately hack away at the genitals of male babies and rip off the foreskin.


Circumcision is a fraud, male genital mutilation that's involuntarily done to the owner of the penis, and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

The newest (most advanced) medical thinking is there is never a need to amputate the parts of the penis called the foreskin (no more than any NEED to cut off the clitoral hood of a baby girl). But most societies and cultures around the world do not practice male or female genital mutilation and see no need for it, and those boys, girls, men, and women who have their genitals left fully intact are perfectly healthy and fine.

The US so wants to justify what they have done to so many men that the push to pass it on to the next generation continues. There is a cycle of mutilation that needs to be broken. Until then boys and the men they become are being harmed. The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). Most cut guys reach middle age and then problems can and do occur (NUMB dick, and a penis that's totally dry and far less sensitive than a penis that's been left intact with a foreskin). Most guys don't talk about these issues, but it is a fact that most VIAGRA is consumed by cut men. Cut guys are missing out on natural sex and masturbation from the start of sexual activity. Male genital mutilation or circumcision has also been proven to decrease the circumference and length of a man's penis.

MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision) doesn't protect against HIV and other STDs. Many nations that don't mutilate their sons have lower rates of HIV and other STDs than nations that do mutilate their sons. Teaching PROPER sex education is the key to lowering HIV and STD rates. Amputating erogenous tissue, and mutilating an infant or young boy's penis doesn't teach safe sex.

The only person that has the right to cut off erogenous tissue is the owner of that tissue. Any society that allows otherwise is primitive and BARBARIC.

I've read it, and my only response is, anything you find barbaric is barbaric and should be illegal. You keep defending foreskin that you're completely ignoring-rather willfully-my point. That, your arguments are indistinguishable from ancient arguments that were used by genocidal lunatics, and that only through genocide has the practice generally been rooted out from areas where it once was common; that, you don't need to have a circumcision to be a Jew or Muslim despite these communities overwhelmingly disagreeing at the present point, the same way these communities used to believe strongly in other things that fell out of fashion. That you're saying most modern adherents to these religions are inherently damaged, and you are on a mission to save people of these religions that haven't been born yet...you know...baptize the baby and all that jazz. What you're saying is indistinguishable to a lot of arguments in the crusades and Spanish Inquisition and how you're saying it isn't much different in tone. Even if you are factually right, your tonedeafness means no one will ever listen to you aside from people with the same mindset, and all you're doing is fostering hate and advocating turning people into criminals off a practice that doesn't actually effect you, and furthermore, of which most of the victims don't seem that it effects them in a meaningful manner-otherwise the anti-circ movement would be a lot bigger in the US than in Europe because a good chunk of American males would view themselves as mutilated (they in fact do not).

Most societies and cultures around the world don't practice circumcision, true enough. But from what I've read, the practice is becoming more popular in Asia in particular, and is around 30% these days. Maybe that's factually wrong, but, I'd need to see evidence of it, and frankly, you don't have credibility with me to provide it given the fact you refuse to refer to it by any scientific term but rather in only emotionally charged terms.

As far as circumcision is concerned, it seems to actually have health benefits, but so what? Foreskin has health benefits too. Circumcision has risks and problems also. You don't just say that circumcision is wrong because it is bad for you: you squash any study that says it can prevent HIV, which I feel is garbage: Safe sex definitely helps eliminate STDs, but circumcisions are a tradeoff on this: easier to hygienically maintain and keep free of infection versus requiring education and effort. I for one don't think the tradeoffs are worth it in any degree-until I encounter people like you. Every single health benefit to circumcision, or health detriment to foreskin can be remedied adequately by proper care. Study after study has demonstrated it. So you're outright lying when you say that it doesn't protect against HIV for various reasons. But, that doesn't mean it is a good form of protection, for reasons listed above. Also another way it "protects" is to harden skin and remove moving parts from the penis which can break, which gives less probability of bleeding, a key way to spread it-at the cost of sensitivity beyond those lost nerves that you talk about.

Again, education is the way to combat these problems.

For instance, if you have a sore hand, you can cut off your hand, problem solved. To say that cutting off your hand doesn't solve your health problem here is ridiculous-the question is, is there a better treatment? Is this needed? Is it better to have a sore hand or to not have a hand at all? Etc.;

These arguments are the common sense, non-emotionally charged arguments against circumcision. Not your emotional pile of trash that has a lineage towards the Seleucids, Crusaders, Inquisitors, and Nazis. And frankly, your arguments aren't designed to prove the advantages of a foreskin most of the time the second you call it mutilation. They're to denigrate a segment of society you think requires denigration to other segments of society. You are doing nothing but preaching to a choir. You are the reason people get circumcised for religious reasons.

I've grown to be against banning female circumcision in the US. Why? I don't think it is a problem here requiring a ban. There's very few reports of it, and furthermore, you'd be driving the practice under ground into seedier areas violating principles of harm reduction. Female circumcision has never been big amongst any community in the US. And it will probably never be. What a ban means, in my opinion, is telling certain potential immigrants that they're not allowed to move here and be seen as normal. What you're doing is forcing communities that practice female circumcision into limited options-and preventing them from finding rational reasons to abandon the practice. You don't seem to understand that when you harden the heart this much, the only way to "fix" the situation is to throw everyone practicing it into a prison-what a ban really would do-and possibly prevent them from having children and to take their children away from them, and then to teach the children to hate their parents for making them flawed. I mean, unless they "learn their lesson" isn't the inevitable consequence long term prison past the ability to have children, compulsatory sterilization, extermination, or a combination of the three? And since all lineages of practices of the behavior die out, doesn't it mean you've left the practice die out simply by killing off its adherents the same way one kills off a feral colony of cats?

And isn't that a pretty horrible thing to do to human beings? And isn't that pretty much the definition of ethnic cleansing, if all these people have a similar background?

I believe that some day circumcision will die out, as I do not believe it is a necessary procedure in most capacities. But I think you really don't understand why the practice exists in the first place in the modern world, and I think therefore can not understand why it has a reason to persist. The fact you won't even take the time to find out why it is this way indicates further that you have not one shred of compassion for the people who you think are victims of the practice, and thus, your arguments ring even more hollow. And given the fact you haven't disputed the fact you're a white male of christian extraction, or christian extraction in general, I'm left to believe that's true, and you don't want to admit that there might be people who don't want to listen to you because of a projection of white guilt. No, they're just professional victims because you haven't done anything wrong, right? Except, you're unwilling to listen to what made them go into what you call this "professional victim mentality" and rather are content demonizing people who have been already victimized.

Just because you're white doesn't mean you have to have white guilt. But, it shouldn't surprise you if people get really really cagey about your opinions if they've heard it before from people that have proven to be the enemies of their families. Doesn't inherently mean you're wrong. But it means at best you're tonedeaf. Half of my family died in the holocaust, my direct ancestors were essentially exiled from the Russian Empire, and while there forced to live in squalor, and there are many genetic markers in my family tracing some of our roots to Spain. So I know a bit about ethnic cleansing, and I know a bit about the arguments used which made it possible. If some sort of "circumcision brigades" came and killed off most of your family, and then kicked them off the lands that they lived on, and then killed off half of those remaining, you wouldn't be particularly cagey hearing people saying the exact same stuff they used to say, and in just as menacing a tone? Is this too difficult a concept to understand for the anti-circumcision people on this forum?

[darkeyes]

Then you've mellowed on the topic a little. A ban reflects the notion that choice needs to be taken off the table!Not at all.. me attitude is precisely as it has always been ever since I can remember. As best I can tell, choice isn't on the table for those infants and young children who are to be circumcised... being compelled is not choice save the choice of those doing the compelling.

[jimdawg]

Not at all.. me attitude is precisely as it has always been ever since I can remember. As best I can tell, choice isn't on the table for those infants and young children who are to be circumcised... being compelled is not choice save the choice of those doing the compelling.

Well, that's a shame. It means you'll never know how to argue it with someone who supports it, and will only entrench their positions.

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Proposed-circumcision-ban-a-sign-of-anti-Semitism-327821

That's a recent article. Notice the Jewish position: It isn't for the most part pro-circ as much as 1. This is another attempt to end Judaism in Europe and 2. We believe the anti-circumcision science is caused by ideologues and don't accept the legitimacy of a ban.

You can argue how bad it is all day, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that a ban would effectively exile anyone who isn't an atheist of Jewish descent from the continent, leaving behind two types of people: either people who are not in mainstream Judaism-the vast minority of people who believe a circumcision is not necessary for Jewish belief and Jews who really think it is that bad (again, Jews are skeptical of shrill studies that support outlawing their beliefs with good reason), and atheists of Jewish descent (there are quite a few of these). In other words, there's four options for Jews here that do not fit into the atheist and extreme minority opinion: violate any potential ban (and since there's undefined consequences, it could be condemnation, a fine, jail/loss of liberty, loss of children and/or compulsatory sterilization-the last option would certainly end the existence of a genetic strain), flee to America, or flee to Israel, or outright fight back and become radicalized (This is important and why bringing up the holocaust is fair: "Never again" means also that Jews will not take such things lying down and won't submit to the will of a state that it determines has been radicalized against them). And even if you don't set up camps, what you'll find is that within 55 years (when all Jewish women would be infertile after the placement of such a ban) you'll have reached the Endlosung af die Judenfrage in Europa.

Note this commentary isn't pro-circ. It is saying that going over the top in anti-circ stuff will absolutely result in ethnic cleansing no matter how you slice it. And saying that the good Jews will be left behind and only the barbaric Jews will be punished, as someone else has recently insinuated, is overt anti-Semitism. And that's why us Jews doubt there is any actual caring of the welfare of the children; it seeks to care about the welfare of their parental-child, you know, the people who genetically have historically reared children.

And when you combine that with views on abortion-which most Jews aren't opposed to-you end up with complete disgust: If women have control over their bodies to the extent they can abort a fetus, why is it so harmful to just wait three months and "snip some skin"?

What about the ramifications here of the vaccine people who claim vaccines cause autism? It has been debunked by numerous studies. But suppose some come along that are "really convincing" and show that giving vaccines to children has an element of risk and that parents, like circumcision, shouldn't decide, only the child should decide. But giving it later might harm its effectiveness in the sense that it allows societies to raise incubators of diseases like polio, thus making it more likely to give it to people who have been vaccinated, all in the name of reducing some sort of traumatic event that will negatively impact the life of the child (autism). It seems to me that the anti-circumcision crowd is the same type that, if not anti-Semitic, should EAGERLY be in support of such types of behavior (I contend that I've seen not a jot of evidence that the anti-circumcision folks think that foreskin health is less important than genuine mental health issues beyond men being unhappy and wanting to blame the size of their, I mean, supposed functionality of their penis) but I, like most Jews, find any evidence of this occurring to be genuinely wanting. Perhaps the anti-circumcision crowd wants to limit their exposure to other insane, paranoid rhetoric in an attempt to appear sane? Or they sanely believe that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their detriment since most people in western society have been vaccinated, and it has certainly saved many more lives than any reports of autistic growth in the culture?

That isn't saying that circumcision has any necessary health benefits-I can't think of particularly many that would outweigh not being circumcised. That is to say 1. I believe at the end of the day anti-circumcision people place circumcision on a separate list of evils effecting children, and that this might have its origins in anti-Semitism given historical points of view on the topic [same argument, less science in the past], 2. For that reason it is specifically singling out Jews and Muslims and 3. The only way to pass a ban, since most people are indifferent to this matter, is to appeal to anti-immigrant sentiments; case in point, Muslim meat in the Netherlands seeming to be about animal rights yet getting voted on by non-left wing animal rights sectors of the economy, such as Geert Wilders and his ilk, or marinet bans being supported by Swiss feminists because "Islam is anti-woman..." although odds are strong that a ban on churches wouldn't raise nearly the same level of ire, and that there are tons of inhumane practices regarding the killing of animals in Europe but the major one seeming to be brought up for the last decade are the ritual slaughters only, and they're the only bans that see a wide level of support, and one must conclude that such bans are not due to the nature of the argument but the nature of the people they seek to make life intolerable for. For instance, horsemeat got into the meat supply. Therefore, let's ban all Jews and Muslims from having meat. Yeah, that's logical, since horses are so obviously kosher...And Jews and Muslims often view the eating of pigs as strange and cruel, the same way most Europeans don't want to eat horses or dogs. So, since horsemeat and dog meat is banned, can we take away your pork, please? And why wouldn't the majority of Europe support that but will ban horsemeat, which has traditionally been eaten by many in Europe? Hmm...could it be that "we don't give a damn about the people who historically have eaten horse?"

[jamieknyc]

Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.

[NMCowboys]

Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.
It's not racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, or bigotry against Judaism or Islam or any of the other nonsense like this posted to be against circumcision or male genital mutilation.

I have friends who are Jewish who did not practice genital mutilation on their sons. I have a friend who is Jewish from the Ukraine and he and his family are against circumcision, they see it as pointless genital mutilation, and none of the males in his family have had it done.

With ED's paranoid and professional victim ramblings that prove nothing, all one has to do is read his posts to see he's an internet troll.

[jimdawg]

It's not racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, or bigotry against Judaism or Islam or any of the other nonsense like this posted to be against circumcision or male genital mutilation.

I have friends who are Jewish who did not practice genital mutilation on their sons. I have a friend who is Jewish from the Ukraine and he and his family are against circumcision, they see it as pointless genital mutilation, and none of the males in his family have had it done.

With ED's paranoid and professional victim ramblings that prove nothing, all one has to do is read his posts to see he's an internet troll.

Lemme condense what you said: "I'm not an anti-Semite. I have some Jewish friends. But I definitely think most Jews are damaged. If you disagree with me, you are an internet troll."

You are an anti-Semite and a bigot, you just don't realize it because you have co-opted the WN position "We're just protecting like minded common sense folks, and Jews have a victim mentality that we're sick of hearing about" and you are the aggressor. It needed to be said in those words. You might honestly believe you're not an anti-Semite, but you're completely disinterested in finding out why you're obviously an anti-Semite. And if a Muslim was here posting, they would probably agree with most of my sentiments and add you're Islamophobic and bigoted as well. Imagine that-you've just brought peace to Jews and Muslims. I suppose we should thank people like you all around the world, as your intolerance and hatred might bring the conditions for peace.

[darkeyes]

I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision?

Sticks and stones and names as the old saying goes..

[void()]

I think it boils down to a few simple questions.

1. Are you the parent/s of the child in question?

2. If not, what grants you any right to decide anything regarding that
child?

In my humble opinion, natural law would rank over legality i.e. a
child's natural kin would be given right prior to state appointed
guardians. Barring these considerations we ought to not continue a
dramatic roe on an internet forum. We all know that for sure, voicing
your opinion moves heaven and earth to make it purely natural and
divinely cosmic law.

[darkeyes]

Are u trying to say that natural law gives the parents of a child all rights to decide what happens to him or her and parents have absolute rights over their child's welfare before the society of which they are members?? Shall we abolish the crime of infanticide now among many other things? Are u trying to say that in a democratic society we are not allowed to discuss and decide issues of child welfare within our societies?:eek2:

[NMCowboys]

I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision?

Sticks and stones and names as the old saying goes..

Well said. Despite what ED and another troll think being against male genital mutilation does not make someone a nazi bigot, Anti-Semite, against Judaism or Islam, or any of the other nonsense names they claim.

[void()]

No, not fully. I am saying though modern democratic society is something of an oxymoron.
Here in America democracy is only a pleasantly tolerable form of socialism, which it was
established to be. I am saying even after a day solid of kicking a dead horse, the horse
remains dead, your foot sorer for it. How modern to not realize that doing the same and
expecting different results, does not work?

Sometimes we need to step back and let what will be, be. Folks will be educated and
we can educate further. That does not ensure good always saves the day, unfortunately.
Nor do I think it warrants arrogance on my part to think touting an opinion against something,
I think cruel, evil will alter that behavior or set of actions. You can lead a horse to water but
I've yet to see a horse forced to drink it.

[NMCowboys]

It's his body so it's his choice when he's an adult if he wants to get his penis mutilated (circumcised) by his own choice.

[darkeyes]

No, not fully. I am saying though modern democratic society is something of an oxymoron.
Here in America democracy is only a pleasantly tolerable form of socialism, which it was
established to be. I am saying even after a day solid of kicking a dead horse, the horse
remains dead, your foot sorer for it. How modern to not realize that doing the same and
expecting different results, does not work?

Sometimes we need to step back and let what will be, be. Folks will be educated and
we can educate further. That does not ensure good always saves the day, unfortunately.
Nor do I think it warrants arrogance on my part to think touting an opinion against something,
I think cruel, evil will alter that behavior or set of actions. You can lead a horse to water but
I've yet to see a horse forced to drink it.

And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value..Even in the USA it is no longer so common as it was a decade or two ago... Kicking a dead horse? The foot may be sore but not so... and there is nothing wrong with touting an opinion for or against something.. I do it all the time and some would say far too much.. yet better by far that, than sitting on hands, gagged, neutered and saying and doing nothing and quibbling about those who do and attempting to undermine them by saying in effect, that whatever we do as ordinary citizens does no fucking good...... we sit on our own hands, gag ourselves and neuter ourselves and it does not have to be... well, we do that all by ourselves and anything government does to aid us in that is because we have allowed and even encouraged them to do it...

.. in the west we do have a democratic deficit.. yet we still have a semblance of democracy.. clumsy; inadequate;corrupt... yet if sufficient of the electorate get sufficiently annoyed and decide to act as they often do, even the most bent, useless, and lumbering of governments and legislatures are still forced to react and act. How modern to sit on our arses and allow things just to happen and forget that it need not be so:)..

[jimdawg]

I would rather be thought nazi bigot and any other ghastly and quite inappropriate label u wish to call me than to harm a single hair on the head of a any human child.. call me anti-semite if u will, but I would rather be called that than deprive any perfectly healthy human being the right to decide upon what happens to any part of of his (or her) body before he or she is old enough,aware, enough and informed and knowledgeable enough to make that decision for himself. If God gave each of us free will, then where is that free will in the case of infant and child circumcision? And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value.. I have nothing to say. I never thought you'd be nearly as ignorant as you came off. You have more outrage over less than 20,000 nerve and fat cells than you do about genocide. And you call yourself a progressive? Hah! You would rather be a racist than an anti-racist. Again you're misunderstanding, I think intentionally, my point, specifically, bans are genocidal and if you don't kill the people practicing the tradition counterproductive at your goals. So this can be construed two ways since you're intentionally not even arguing that a ban might be stupid because you have a holy attraction to foreskin: 1. Again, why is a ban the best method at rooting out the problem 2. Why not just ban vaccines, since the child can choose when they're old enough to get a vaccine which may cause some side effects including, in rare circumstances, death? And why not also ban children from being fed by parents until they're old enough, since parents can give them food they're allergic to/makes them sick/food they dislike? This is pointed: I hated broccoli as a kid. What on earth gave my parents the right to give it to me? I should've just eaten broccoli when I was old enough to CHOOSE to do that, right? Right? And if I want a diet of nothing but high fat garbage that would've made me sick (which I did as a kid), that's my choice, right? I'm done responding to this argument. It is impossible to respect someone this insensitive. My argument isn't even pro-circ, it is anti-ban. And it is nice to know that some socialists would sooner side with the Nazis on some issues than their victims as you openly admitted there. You're wrong, you're always going to be wrong, until you realize that an arbitrary diktat changes as much as human behavior as a vinegar catches flies. We are Jews, we have our ways of life. If you want this tradition ended your way, you're going to have try to kill us all. I would rather die than give into your way of thinking and I'm not even pro-circ. You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers. You can say that the label is incredibly inappropriate, but it is only as inappropriate as you are ignorant about what you're saying or at least how you're saying it.

[NMCowboys]

You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers.
What you're claiming with your insane bigoted rants is not true. The Jewish people I know and am friends with who are against circumcision they practice Judaism but just do not mutilate the genitals of their infant or young sons. Yes people who are both Jewish and Muslim are questioning why their religions say that genital mutilation should be performed on infants and young boys. When it comes to history both European and American or Western circumcision has not been in widespread practice at all in those countries or cultures for very long at all. Europe ended circumcision by having doctors and nurses stop performing it since it's genital mutilation.

[Annika L]

My rants are only pointless because you don't get it. But you know what? "Professional Victim Mentality" is a code phrase. You know exactly what you're saying, and you know who you're quoting. And I'm done arguing with you-we both know what I'm talking about here.

Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?

NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.

(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)

[NMCowboys]

Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?

NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.

(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)

Incarnations? Kali? I'm not Hindu. Other people on this site who have been here longer than I have told me how Effectively Deleted is a troll from years ago.

That troll ED will claim with his bigoted rants that anyone who is against male or female genital mutilation is a Nazi, bigot, white supremacist, white nationalist, anti-Semitic, Anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, and other bigoted nonsense that only makes sense to him and another troll who claims to be from NYC that commented.

[darkeyes]

I have nothing to say. Well.. we could but hope.. however..


I never thought you'd be nearly as ignorant as you came off. You have more outrage over less than 20,000 nerve and fat cells than you do about genocide. And you call yourself a progressive? Hah! You would rather be a racist than an anti-racist. Again you're misunderstanding, I think intentionally, my point, specifically, bans are genocidal and if you don't kill the people practicing the tradition counterproductive at your goals. So this can be construed two ways since you're intentionally not even arguing that a ban might be stupid because you have a holy attraction to foreskin: 1. Again, why is a ban the best method at rooting out the problem 2. Why not just ban vaccines, since the child can choose when they're old enough to get a vaccine which may cause some side effects including, in rare circumstances, death? And why not also ban children from being fed by parents until they're old enough, since parents can give them food they're allergic to/makes them sick/food they dislike? This is pointed: I hated broccoli as a kid. What on earth gave my parents the right to give it to me? I should've just eaten broccoli when I was old enough to CHOOSE to do that, right? Right? And if I want a diet of nothing but high fat garbage that would've made me sick (which I did as a kid), that's my choice, right? I'm done responding to this argument. It is impossible to respect someone this insensitive. My argument isn't even pro-circ, it is anti-ban. And it is nice to know that some socialists would sooner side with the Nazis on some issues than their victims as you openly admitted there. You're wrong, you're always going to be wrong, until you realize that an arbitrary diktat changes as much as human behavior as a vinegar catches flies. We are Jews, we have our ways of life. If you want this tradition ended your way, you're going to have try to kill us all. I would rather die than give into your way of thinking and I'm not even pro-circ. You seem to willfully ignore that almost all Jews that gave up circumcision either weren't religious and blended into Europe pretty well to begin with, refused to let their kids know they were Jewish or have any visible marks because these people were terrified of Europeans after the holocaust, or WERE KILLED AND THEN LIBERATED AND FLED TO ISRAEL, THE USSR OR AMERICA. No religious community is seriously questioning it. Some atheists and Europeanizers are. That's it. That's all. No one else. Europe ended circumcision by killing off the practicers. You can say that the label is incredibly inappropriate, but it is only as inappropriate as you are ignorant about what you're saying or at least how you're saying it.

..and when u have nothing to say do me a fave.. try very hard not to put into the mouth of another things they did not say... and when u have nothing to say it would be nice if u did not misrepresent the history of European circumcision. And when u say no religious community is seriously questioning it...in a sense that may be true.. yet there are only really two religious communities on this planet who demand of adherents circumcision.. some have questioned and dropped it because of what it represents.. a spurious assault on an infant child's rights and his person.... not that it was ever universal in any case in any religious community outside of the Jewish and Islamic... not in Europe hun bun...

So when u say have nothing to say.. best say nothing or say nothing that bears no relation to the reality of what another says or the subject in question.

[darkeyes]

Ooooh! Can you please enlighten those of us who have no f-ing clue about the secret code?

NM reopens this thread in each of his many incarnations, and it would be nice to have the ulterior motive laid out in the open...I've always suspected it was just Madame Kali basking in the chaos, but you hint at something darker and more sinister.

(Oh...and it's worth pointing out that you're not done arguing with NM...you might want to rethink that.)Funny u should mention Kali...far as I recall thuggee, a form of devotion to the Goddess Kali, was banned by the British... it remains banned to this day 60 years after Indian independence... as far as I know there are now more Hindus than there ever were when Thuggee was practiced... same can be said about Sati another Hindu practice and tradition banned by the British and still banned.. so much for banning being the road to genocide... many things are banned.. and many should be... stoning adulterers to death (in most of the world at least), burning witches and heretics, (arguably) polygamy in the west and most of the non Islamic world..yet humanity still lives on and becomes more numerous by the day...

[darkeyes]

Funny u should mention Kali...far as I recall thuggee, a form of devotion to the Goddess Kali, was banned by the British... it remains banned to this day 60 years after Indian independence... as far as I know there are now more Hindus than there ever were when Thuggee was practiced... same can be said about Sati another Hindu practice and tradition banned by the British and still banned.. so much for banning being the road to genocide... many things are banned.. and many should be... stoning adulterers to death (in most of the world at least), burning witches and heretics, (arguably) polygamy in the west and most of the non Islamic world..yet humanity still lives on and becomes more numerous by the day...
Talking of which.... nice people our governments shove into power... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/afghanistan-reintroduction-public-stoning-adulterers

[NMCowboys]

it is the "science" behind circumcision that is 19th century pseudoscience: hysteria against "masturbatory insanity" when circumcision was supposed to be good againt alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, blindness, boils, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, headaches, hernia, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, plague, phimosis, posthitis, rectal prolapse, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis and/or yeast infections. Now HIV, HPV, STD, UTI, and penile, cervical and prostate cancer have supplanted them but the principle is the same – sympathetic magic, substitutionary sacrifice.

It is still taking away a part of a child's body that will never grow back and their genitals will always be a lot less sensitive, not fully functional as they would be if they were left intact, and mutilated.

Americans have this weird medical-indoctrinated view on MGM, trying to rationalize a barbaric, inhumane tradition and are victim of the principle of " cutting breeds cutters". Morals and ethics, as a matter of positive fact, change in time. We do not stone women to death anymore. Moreover hitting your child is seen as child-abuse but MGM not? Jews and Muslims have to accept modern morals and ethics very soon!

I don´t agree child mutilation is acceptable, therefore I fully concur with the German judge´s decision. It has nothing to do with ´anti-Semitism´ of ´anti-Zionism´, but purely with the welfare of children.

We have abandoned crucifixion, witch burning, stoning etc., so why not abandon ancient cruel practices like child circumcision as well. Let the person who wants to circumcise wait until he or she is 18 years old and then decide whether he or she wishes to practice circumcision.

[void()]

And yet Voidie, in the last 60 years throughout Europe at least, and much of the western world, the kicking of that dead horse has seen incidences of infant and child circumcision outside of the religious sphere almost disappear, and some religious people, Jewish and Islamic, begin to question its value..Even in the USA it is no longer so common as it was a decade or two ago... Kicking a dead horse? The foot may be sore but not so... and there is nothing wrong with touting an opinion for or against something.. I do it all the time and some would say far too much.. yet better by far that, than sitting on hands, gagged, neutered and saying and doing nothing and quibbling about those who do and attempting to undermine them by saying in effect, that whatever we do as ordinary citizens does no fucking good...... we sit on our own hands, gag ourselves and neuter ourselves and it does not have to be... well, we do that all by ourselves and anything government does to aid us in that is because we have allowed and even encouraged them to do it...

.. in the west we do have a democratic deficit.. yet we still have a semblance of democracy.. clumsy; inadequate;corrupt... yet if sufficient of the electorate get sufficiently annoyed and decide to act as they often do, even the most bent, useless, and lumbering of governments and legislatures are still forced to react and act. How modern to sit on our arses and allow things just to happen and forget that it need not be so:)..

Fair enough points, maybe. If you choose that perspective then, more power to you.
Some of us see it as only furthering a divide. Sometimes in the doing or saying of nothing,
we attain, achieve everything. Sometimes it this 'nothing' that is precisely what is needed.

Not saying it is directly the case here. Would suggest taking a step aside for a moment though.
Give it a bit of consideration. There are many junctions in life which are not always as they seem.
Ever wonder what the ostrich really does with its head burrowed in the sand? Maybe it tunnels away
from issue. Maybe it fetches a mouthful of sand to spit in the face of the cause of the issue.

We don't know though. We only see the ostrich tuck its head into a dune. We assume it dies because
the predator would attack and eat it. Does it really? Maybe to ostrich ducks it head to phart, deploying
heinous biological weaponry to dispense the enemy. We assume far too much, arrogance included.

Who has an absolute correct way to live? I double and triple dog dare you to answer, can guarantee
we'll all be wrong. Pretty arrogant to think our way is right, their way is wrong. Arrogant and hate filled
as well, it creates a line to divide us. There is only us. There is no they, them, our group, their group.

Only US.

That is a difficult idea to swallow when we keep fanning the flames by which to burn horse corpses.
The sparks are there, if an inferno of learning is meant to erupt into its own firestorm, it will. No, I'm
not using sleight of hand or misdirection. You, like all of us have times we go duh. Maybe this is a time
you went duh, you missed the point I was aiming to convey. It happens.


Only in an effort of clarifying do I voice this. I am against religious bodily modifications
of infants. Here is why. In my view of any religion, one is free to believe as they desire,
so long as they expressly do not harm another. In doing these modifications it remains
unclear if there is or is not harm. In my view, one is forcing their will upon another by
physical action. This conveys to me a sense of harming another. It is at this point any
religion loses and any support from me.

As Groucho Marxx says, I'd rather not belong to any club that would have me.

[darkeyes]

Fair enough points, maybe. If you choose that perspective then, more power to you.
Some of us see it as only furthering a divide. Sometimes in the doing or saying of nothing,
we attain, achieve everything. Sometimes it this 'nothing' that is precisely what is needed.

Not saying it is directly the case here. Would suggest taking a step aside for a moment though.
Give it a bit of consideration. There are many junctions in life which are not always as they seem.
Ever wonder what the ostrich really does with its head burrowed in the sand? Maybe it tunnels away
from issue. Maybe it fetches a mouthful of sand to spit in the face of the cause of the issue.

We don't know though. We only see the ostrich tuck its head into a dune. We assume it dies because
the predator would attack and eat it. Does it really? Maybe to ostrich ducks it head to phart, deploying
heinous biological weaponry to dispense the enemy. We assume far too much, arrogance included.

Who has an absolute correct way to live? I double and triple dog dare you to answer, can guarantee
we'll all be wrong. Pretty arrogant to think our way is right, their way is wrong. Arrogant and hate filled
as well, it creates a line to divide us. There is only us. There is no they, them, our group, their group.

Only US.

That is a difficult idea to swallow when we keep fanning the flames by which to burn horse corpses.
The sparks are there, if an inferno of learning is meant to erupt into its own firestorm, it will. No, I'm
not using sleight of hand or misdirection. You, like all of us have times we go duh. Maybe this is a time
you went duh, you missed the point I was aiming to convey. It happens.


Only in an effort of clarifying do I voice this. I am against religious bodily modifications
of infants. Here is why. In my view of any religion, one is free to believe as they desire,
so long as they expressly do not harm another. In doing these modifications it remains
unclear if there is or is not harm. In my view, one is forcing their will upon another by
physical action. This conveys to me a sense of harming another. It is at this point any
religion loses and any support from me.

As Groucho Marxx says, I'd rather not belong to any club that would have me.If one decides to remove without the express consent of another person, several million nerve endings and a large part of the skin from a part of his body, one does, by definition, harm.... it is one thing the person himself electing for that harm to be done, quite another for someone to decide on his behalf before he is old enough and aware enough to have an idea of wtf is going on... and so Voidie... as Burke said..

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Is it an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis an infant? Is removing his healthy left foot?

[NMCowboys]

Is it an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis an infant

Well said. It's a pointless and barbaric form of genital mutilation that is no longer needed.

[Paulsson]

I'm uncircumcized and thankful. The head of my dick is more sensitive and my wife loves to tongue inside the foreskin. Also,uncircumcised in a nudist resort is like being a celebrity.

[ghost_of_bluebiyou]

Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.

I've seen white racism (whites hating others). I've seen black racism (blacks hating others). I've seen Jewish racism (Jews hating others).
Even the blacks with the predominant anti-gay epithet have recently abated (black groups have separated from NAACP due to change in moral and official policy toward gays).
Jamie is playing the (completely invalid) race card again... and I would not be surprised if Jamie was also "Effectively Deleted".
Jamie, yours and "Effectively Deleted"'s posts and positions superimpose Zionist racism over ethics/morality.
Jamie, and "Effectively Deleted"....
why does God want you to sexually mutilate babies?
So you don't have to throw them in the fire to their death anymore?
While we humans are omnivores, it is truly morally regrettable that we must raise and kill many animals to feed ourselves.
does your race still kill multitudes of little animals to please God?

Faith is one thing. Harming yourself in the name of faith... okay... we all should lend some space here, as an adult choice for self.
Harming others in the name of your faith... that crosses (blunders/blobs across) a morality line.
Do you see that line? Are you too racist to acknowledge it?
Early USA deemed the black race too evolutionary backwards to be citizens, therefore slavery was okay. Morality override.
Early North American conquest saw the heathens as too backwards, so it was okay to kill them and take their land (and gold). Morality override.
History is replete with morality overrides.
So to preach ignorance in the name of religion... is okay... if you want to teach your children that Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe, the earth is flat, people not of our religion are dogs (gentiles). Fine.
But to mutilate a child's penis, vagina, breasts... especially the sexual parts of the body... but also don't chop off toes, fingers. Don't harm eyes or perform lobotomies... etc.
Don't do these things. They are wrong.
If they were easily and painlessly completely reversible upon reaching adulthood... then maybe...
But that's not the case. That is totally not the case.
Your claim of racism only proves your position is racist. And thus your support of child mutilation is defined by your words as a racist gesture.

[NMCowboys]

Effectively, don't waste your time trying to argue with racists.

Since when is being either Jewish or Muslim a "race"? Only someone who is racist, a nazi, white power/white pride type, Zionist, Fundamentalist Muslim, Orthodox Jew, or white supremacist would claim that being Jewish or Muslim is an actual "race". :rolleyes: How is Circumcision or male genital mutilation a racial characteristic you're born with when an infant boy is mutilated after birth, or at a young age?

[void()]

If one decides to remove without the express consent of another person, several million nerve endings and a large part of the skin from a part of his body, one does, by definition, harm.... it is one thing the person himself electing for that harm to be done, quite another for someone to decide on his behalf before he is old enough and aware enough to have an idea of wtf is going on... and so Voidie... as Burke said..

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Is it an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis an infant? Is removing his healthy left foot?


I'm sure you comprehended the writing. That means you understand I am not in disagreement with you.
Merely, I think other ways exist aside from berating others, no matter how backward the views they
hold seem. As to what other ways?

Not exactly sure. But I do know I'm not, judge, jury, executioner. Have doubts many could say they are,
having clear conscious along with saying it. And it was likely John Stuart Mill quoted by Charles Frederic Aked whom
first coined the apothegm you cite with reverence. [ http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/ ]
Not that I suppose it to be of great importance, only a bit trivial bibliographic whimsy.

[NMCowboys]

It is an evil act deciding to circumcise the healthy penis on an infant.

true.

[endowednudist]

No one has a right to cut off another person's body part without their consent.

[matutum]

a person should be deleted because of their opinions??? or what they believe??

[BiMaleAB]

While the original post looks to be somewhat dated, i believe this ban would have been geared more towards the tendancy of some muslims wish to have their daughters circumcized. I believe circumcision is wrong and I challenge anyone to make an honest case how it is not genital mutilation of children whether male or female.

The late rhetoritician, journalist and author Christopher Hitchens puts it much better than I ever can:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_gmiJtJLA

[NMCowboys]

While the original post looks to be somewhat dated, i believe this ban would have been geared more towards the tendancy of some muslims wish to have their daughters circumcized. I believe circumcision is wrong and I challenge anyone to make an honest case how it is not genital mutilation of children whether male or female.

The late rhetoritician, journalist and author Christopher Hitchens puts it much better than I ever can:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_gmiJtJLA
Well said. I will watch the video later.

[NMCowboys]

While the original post looks to be somewhat dated, i believe this ban would have been geared more towards the tendancy of some muslims wish to have their daughters circumcized. I believe circumcision is wrong and I challenge anyone to make an honest case how it is not genital mutilation of children whether male or female.

The late rhetoritician, journalist and author Christopher Hitchens puts it much better than I ever can:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq_gmiJtJLA

OK I watched the video it's pretty good. Thanks for posting it.