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
Printable View
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
Thanks for sharing DD, I appreciate your honest opinion.
“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?
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.
Ah
I found a case about circumcision and the Supreme Court of Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...sion-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/...rticle5395259/
"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)
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.
“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.
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.
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
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.”
Best place to be born.Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenfinger
Where is the US???
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....e-scandinavia/
I think it's a combination of all. And I think that blindsides a lot of folks. It is difficultQuote:
Originally Posted by mariersa
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by void()
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...ut-396277.html
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.. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/we.../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......
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."?
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.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
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..
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.....
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....:)
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".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
if you wonder why I am so touchy as you put it... maybe now you can see why.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
nutme is backkkkkkkkk!!!!!!
is that who it is, Chica? Thought I recognised the style..:eek2: Still constructive I see.:cutelaugh
Just trying to be helpful
:suave:Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagom
- Drew :paw:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
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 2009Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Velorex
"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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by ExSailor
...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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
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.
Mutilating an infant or young girl or boy's genitals for religious reasons, let alone hygienic or cultural reasons is silly and pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
: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.
Quote:
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/t...rt-of-comments
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NMCowboys
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by EffectivelyDeleted
..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...
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit16