Jamie is of course a supreme court judge and knows these things doesn't he? Wont both sides have lawyers if it goes to the supreme court? Both cant be right. He at best has a line, but not quite the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
Jamie is of course a supreme court judge and knows these things doesn't he? Wont both sides have lawyers if it goes to the supreme court? Both cant be right. He at best has a line, but not quite the house.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling
Jamie,
It will also raise the public profile of the issue, and have the effect of making people think about it, and talk about it. I'm sure quite a number of those will go away and do the research on the subject themselves, and thus be better informed on the issue, when they come to make a decision.
That, in itself can only be a good thing, lay aside the bruised egos, being better educated never hurt anyone.
I don't suppose the opposition to slavery was an easy ride either, or votes for women, or Gay rights, but if those early activists hadn't put in the effort the law would not have changed.
As Mao said, 'the longest journey will always begin with the first step'.
We owe it to the future generations of children to try.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
Several. Parental rights have been upheld even unto the death of the child (no transfusions or r blood given to Jehovas Witnesses). There is no litmus test as to the le el of devoutness that can be given to aualify, either.
As for awareness, the only place this is even talked about with any frequency is gay websites and marginally within the gay community itself. It is to the gay community what abortion is to a small section of the religious right.
Pasa
This is also coming from someone who is pro-mutilation, anti-Moslem as seen in other threads, loves to play the ultimate victim card, and who maliciously considers male genital mutilation the same piercing one's ear lobes. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
Female Genital Mutilation of infants is illegal in the United States, eventually male genital mutilation of infants will be as well.
Sorry Pasa, male genital mutilation is talked about among Heterosexual men, among parents, among people of all genders/orientations, among Jewish and Moslem people against such mutilations in their religions, and not just among gay men or on "gay" websites even if you want to claim that it only is.
Nope. Out of all the political forums I participate in, only the gay ones ever mention it. I'm active politically both locally and with state politics. Ive never heard this issue even breathed about. Im on forums for other non sexual past times that have huge off-topic real world discussions. Never once has this topic come up.
I reside in both the hetero and the gay communities. This issue isnt terribly important or thought about outside the gay commmunity. And even then only a small minority even care enough to get worked up about it. Certainly wasnt a topic of conversation at the NLA conference or at LUEY this year.
Pasa
Leather has become such a joke in the past 4 decades, and it's all about money and consumerism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasadenacpl2
It has been like this since the late 70s and early 80s when the contests started, and leather became a total joke like it all still is today.
There are people who are in the gay and Hetero "communities" who are against circumcision and even people who are into leather who are even if you want to deny it. Stop living in such a bubble.
Anyone who has taken second-year Constitutional law in law school could write the opinion on that. It is a no-brainer that the law will be stricken down on First Amendment grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by sammie19
Jamie may be right but I really think we should allow your supreme coourt to make that decision.
One thing we know is that in this country there have been the extremely rare cases of small Christian sects such as the Jehovah Winesses who are opposed to surgery or blood transfusions where a court has decided that the interests and well being of a child takes precedence over the religious conviction of the parents and such treatment has been ordered by the court. As far as I know such cases only enter the legal arena where a child's life in endangered.
To the credit of the Jehovahs Witnesses however no stigma is attached to child or parents for this apparent contravention of their beliefs in such circumstances.
Well, in our nation it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
Pasa
Leather's status in your eyes isnt really relevant to theconversation at hand. And, as I was pointing out, I dont live in a bubble. I' m working and living and playing in a wide variety of communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy
Are you capable of debating without attacking others?
Pasa
I have posted many links to sites from heterosexuals discussing circumcision, I could have posted a lot more, but I felt I was giving you the gist of what was out there. So, with respect, Pasa is mistaken in his belief that the topic isn't discussed outside Gay or bisexual circles.
This proposed legislation is taking place in California not Texas, so perhaps the debate hasn't reached Texas yet. No doubt it will in time. With the first cases of HIV and Aids, in California and New York, people thought it was just a virus or illness, confined to homosexuals. I believe it was referred to at that time as a 'Gay Plague'. It wasn't on any heterosexual agenda. People soon learned differently.
I think that those who drafted the proposed legislation, were all too aware that it clashed with religious beliefs and the freedoms outlined in your Constitution. I believe it was drafted that way on purpose to create the most controversy. Nothing creates more interest in the wider public than controversy, and nothing jumps onto a bandwagon faster than a legislator who thinks he/she might benefit from it.
I think your Constitution is a noble expression of ideas, with intentions that are to be applauded, but it has already had a number of amendments. I dare say, that future generations may decide it needs further amendments to better reflect their needs and aspirations. No legislation is set in aspic.
Just as Martin Luther King realised his dream would not come immediately, but he believed it would come one day. He dared to dream and now you have a Black Man as President of the United States. Go figure.
vulvectomy, the surgical removal of parts of the female genitalia for medical reasons, is a legal operation in the US.....Quote:
Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy
circumcision, the surgical removal of part of the male genitalia for medical reasons is a legal operation in the US
I am refering to the MEDICALLY NEEDED operations to treat issues with the genitalia, not elective surgeries...... so you will never get rid of circumcision or vulvectomy as long as people continue to develop issues that require surgery and surgery is the only option left for them to do.......
those activists were fighting to end slavery for all people, to get adult females the right to vote and for gay people to have rights tooQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
the so called fight for rights for the children to choose, is still not giving them rights, as they will still lack the right of consent with surgical procedures and the parents / court will still retain the right to put them thru the surgeries
what you are doing is fighting to end elective circumcision and I say elective cos medical circumcision is something that will still remain a form of circumcision that has to be done and in some cases on children......
based around the stats of many of the articles posted, people are making choices about circumcision, and choosing not to...... often using their own personal experiences
its the same as marriage, we have the right of choice, and according to the article I posted in another thread about the decline of marriage, people are exercising that right of choice by not getting married.......
and yes, i know it will be stated that its cos people are better informed... and all that is saying is that people can not make a choice by themselves, without somebody else telling them what to think and what to do......
the moment you say that better informed people make better choices, you are saying that you are incapable of intelligent thinking without people telling you what to think..... and darkside, I do give you a lil more credit than that as I am assuming that you have made a lot of major choices in your life, without the input of other people
Long Duck, that's a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
We're talking and discussing and this topic is about non-elective or non-consensual genital mutilation of boys and girls who can't consent to the genital mutilation that's inflicted upon them either when they're born or as children.
You're going off about things that happen to adults, and only a very small percentage of the human adult population at that.
Most adult women DO NOT need any sort of surgery done to their vulva either as infants, girls, or as adults.
Make your own topic if you want to talk about adults who make their own choice to get surgery done to their genitals since it has nothing to do with this topic or thread at all.
10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy
1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect. The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans), protects it from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.
3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from forced genital surgery, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy.
4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised. Circumcision painfully and permanently alters a baby boy's genitals, removing healthy, protective, functional tissue from the penis and exposing the child to unnecessary pain and medical risks –for no medical benefit. What do you think your baby boy would say if he could tell you?
5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky, and harmful. We know babies are sensitive to pain. Many circumcisions are performed with no analgesic, but even when pain control is employed, the pain is not eliminated. As with any surgery, complications can and do occur with circumcision. These include infection, abnormal bleeding, removal of too much skin, loss of all or part of the glans, urinary problems, and even death. All circumcisions result in the loss of the foreskin and its functions, and leave a penile scar.
6. Because times and attitudes have changed. The circumcision rate in the United States is now below 40% (and much lower in some parts of the country), down from 81% in 1981. More than 60% of all baby boys in the U.S. leave the hospital intact, as more and more parents realize that circumcision is unnecessary and wrong.
7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America are often appalled to hear that American doctors and hospitals remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth. Approximately 75% of the men in the world are not circumcised and remain intact throughout their lives.
8. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy. A natural, intact penis requires no special care, beyond gentle washing while bathing. Later, when the foreskin can be retracted (something that often does not occur until adolescence), a boy can be taught to pull back his foreskin to wash his penis. Forcible retraction of the foreskin results in pain and injury, and should not be done for the first two years.
9. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Over the years, the claims that circumcision prevents various diseases have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD and HIV rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare.
10. Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.
I can not help but notice that every time people point out something that is relevent, you lot argue that its not
medical and elective circumcision are on the same parts of the body, they do the same thing.... and often they are done on children that do not have a say.... and a vulvectomy is also something that is both elective and medical, done on children and without their say..... the removal of cancerous growths and lesions on the genitalia of female children are operations you can google and see for yourself..... so drugstores statement is incorrect, as there are operations in the us that do mutilate the female genitalia, unless he is going to argue that his definition only applies to the things he wants it to apply to and that the children it doesn't apply to, are not mutilated ......
I love the way how its got nothing to do with the thread, but I do not see you telling drugstore that..... no... its only the people that are not kissing your ass and saying " oh great god of ego driven opinion, we agree with your every word "
thats the same with jamie the lawyer that apparently knows nothing, DD the parent that should shut up cos she doesn't have a penis, me that is still remaining neutral on circumcision, the adult circumcised male member that was told his opinion was not relevent, mikey who was told his study that showed that over 4000 guys did not find that their experience matched what you lot claim, his study was invalid cos it was part of a aids research project.... and if thats the case, any of the studies you posted dealing with aids / hiv / hpv etc are also invalid.... but no... you will argue they are valid cos you posted them
yet we have people like you posting your 138 women, incomplete and corrupted data study about how females think that guys with foreskins are better lovers
now do tell me how that is relevent to the topic when you are saying " We're talking and discussing and this topic is about non-elective or non-consensual genital mutilation of boys and girls who can't consent to the genital mutilation that's inflicted upon them either when they're born or as children. "
you are posting shit like that and telling other people to shut up and stay on topic...... so I would suggest you try taking your own advice, instead of telling other people to do what you are clearly not doing......
one word HYPOCRITE
Let us look at the fine tradition of the pro-circ forces in this country. Starting with Kellogg (yes the founder of the cereal company) and his friends the pediatricians of the day.
Quotes from the medical journals of that day:
"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860)
"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts."
Angel Money, Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887, p. 421.
You are judged by the company you keep; your fellow reptiles would speak well of you!
These were DOCTORS THAT TREATED CHILDREN! It was sick brains like this that introduced this country to circumcision. Of course as time went on this rational fell out of favor with the public so other reasons for continuing the mutilation for money had to be invented. All of a sudden it became impossible to clean an uncircumcised penis so the story of circumcision for hygiene came about. Then it was venereal disease, then it was cancer, then it was HIV AIDS, then it was ???, and the it was ????. All just one more load of crap after another!
"That is the ONLY accident (which is snipping too much foreskin) that was reported in the United States. That still only happen 1.2% of the time! More babies die during delivery than accidents happen to boys being circumcisied" Birth is a necessary part of life and things do go wrong and babies die; circumcision is an unnecessary elective surgery and things go wrong and babies do die from this too. SEE THE DIFFERENCE! Too much skin removed ONLY 1.2% of the time, that is a higher incidence than the rate of the dreaded UTI among the uncircumcised male. The UTI the one out of one hundred uncircumcised boys get is easily treated with antibiotics just like it is for the 9 out of one hundred girls. The problem of too much skin being removed is not so easily remedied; skin graft? yea right, the penis is a great place to have skin with limited nerve function. This shows how much you know (or care) about your son’s penis. To you it is just a waterspout that is supposed to look like a plastic dildo.
Complications occur at a rate of about one out of ten circumcisions, while most are said to be minor, some result in serious disfigurement or loss of function or even the total loss of the penis or life of the child. (CAN YOU IMAGINE DEALING WITH ANY OF THESE RESULTS OF AN UNNECESSARY ELECTIVE SURGERY?) These things happen in even major hospitals in this country!
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting, " and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision. "Oh, the reason you people are misreading the APP's recommendations is because it says it shows NO BENEFITS to the child's IMMEDIATE health. Meaning the baby, while you care caring for him would be fine. What about considering the future?" If you are treating people for diseases they MIGHT have in the future, consider this, the incidence of breast cancer is one out of eight women which is thousands of times higher risk than any problems which might require circumcision (even in the US which has an abnormally high rate of "medically required" circumcisions). Would you remove your own breasts and ovaries after menopause because it reduces the risk of cancer?
How about these facts?
Of the industrialized nations the US circumcises the highest percentage of baby boys.
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest infant death rate. (Is this a coincidence?)
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest incidence of HIV AIDs.
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest gonorrhea rate. Roughly 50 times that of Sweden (non-circumcising) and eight times that of Canada (less circumcising)
The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****.
Such ***incurable* ** STD's affect 65 million Americans.
It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year; 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea.
The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries. The dominance of circumcision among the currently sexually active population has done nothing to stop or even slow the spread of these diseases! If anything the reluctance of circumcised males to use condoms (they already have very low sensitivity) has contributed to the spread.
It is time to enter the 21st century and quit modifying people to match the tastes of others (male genital mutilation or female genital mutilation).
Teaching your sons about hygiene will open a channel of communications with them. This openness has been missing from family lives. You don't need to talk about these things when they seem to take care of them selves; so your sons get used to not talking about things sexual with their parents. Teach them about hygiene and it will be easier to teach them about safe sex.
The money that is spent on circumcisions would be better spent on condoms.
And why do you attempt to quote the Bible? If religion was really important to you, you would know the truth. Here it is the letter of Saint Paul to the Galatians 5:1-12
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. FOR IN CHRIST JESUS NEITHER CIRCUMCISION NOR UNCIRCUMCISION HAS ANY VALUE. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”
I really like that last part where it says that those that preach circumcision should emasculate (castrate) themselves. So if you really believe in circumcision, you should castrate yourself and then get back to us.
[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201416]those activists were fighting to end slavery for all people, to get adult females the right to vote and for gay people to have rights too
the so called fight for rights for the children to choose, is still not giving them rights, as they will still lack the right of consent with surgical procedures and the parents / court will still retain the right to put them thru the surgeries
what you are doing is fighting to end elective circumcision and I say elective cos medical circumcision is something that will still remain a form of circumcision that has to be done and in some cases on children......
based around the stats of many of the articles posted, people are making choices about circumcision, and choosing not to...... often using their own personal experiences
its the same as marriage, we have the right of choice, and according to the article I posted in another thread about the decline of marriage, people are exercising that right of choice by not getting married.......
and yes, i know it will be stated that its cos people are better informed... and all that is saying is that people can not make a choice by themselves, without somebody else telling them what to think and what to do......
the moment you say that better informed people make better choices, you are saying that you are incapable of intelligent thinking without people telling you what to think..... and darkside, I do give you a lil more credit than that as I am assuming that you have made a lot of major choices in your life, without the input of other people[/QUOTE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To repeat what I said:-
'It will also raise the public profile of the issue, and have the effect of making people think about it, and talk about it. I'm sure quite a number of those will go away and do the research on the subject themselves, and thus be better informed on the issue, when they come to make a decision.'
I already know what I'm advocating and saying, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, in articulating, my thoughts. I reiterate, better-informed people make better decisions, you may not agree, that is your choice.
Thank you for your concern in this matter.
Long Duck there's no need to be immature, throw a tantrum, and resort to name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Don't go off on tangents, complete non-sequiturs, moot points about completely unrelated topics and subjects that have nothing to do with the topic or subject of the post at all and expect people to reply to them or wonder just why you're doing this.
I read how you posted and were quoted as saying how you believe and have the opinion that male circumcision is genital mutilation and how your penis has lots of heavy scarring and other issues from being circumcised, you said that your penis has been mutilated by circumcision that was inflicted upon you when you were born, so you should take your own advice and stop being a hypocrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothers who observed circumcision
Here's an idea: Everyone who actually cares about this topic and this thread should stop replying to Long Duck Dong who is doing nothing but going off on complete tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or anything at all that this topic and thread are about.
He refuses to make his own topics about these completely random and unrelated subjects so everyone should just ignore him, stop replying to him, and stop feeding this troll.
If he wants to reply and actually act like a mature adult, write in complete sentences, and actually debate as well as stay on the actual subject and topic of the post then just maybe his ramblings will deserve a reply.
better informed parents make better decisions,....Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside2009
so why are they not hearing both sides of the debate ?? why are people being told they are wrong, instead of their opinion respected in the same way you want your opinion respected
most of this thread is a one sided argument geared at shutting down any people that may have a differing opinion, and abusing the hell out of them....and pushing a agenda in peoples faces....
I was always of the understanding that better informed parents have both sides presented in a unbaised and constructive way, so they can make the choice that works best for them..... regardless of what I may think of their decision and choice......
apparently that only applies when people want it to apply, the rest of the time, they want to ram their opinion down peoples throats until people conform and do what is wanted......
claims of being open minded were made in this thread, by people that were telling others not to express their opinion......... so again thats not my defination of open minded.....
I think I will stick to my opinion, thanks darkside, I may not agree with some opinions, but I am not telling people to STFU, I am keeping a open mind about what people are saying, while watching them invalidate their own arguments about what should be talked about in the thread, by posting things that are nothing to do with what they are saying, should be talked about in the thread..... etc etc
I still have the same stance, circumcision is neither right or wrong, its just a medically needed operation at times.... and the stance of fighting for the rights of the children is admirable and a good cause, but in all honesty, its not about the rights of the children and how circumcision is wrong.... its about removing the parental choice to circumcise or give consent to a circumcision
if the ban is put in place, a parent may not request you be circumcised but a doctor can perform one if its medically essential.... so the parent doesn't have a choice any more..., the child doesn't get one if its deemed medically needed, and they do not get a say in the matter..... but a adult male has the choice to be circumcised or not and a adult is not a child......
feel free to be the first to ignore me, then......while you continue to do the same thing that you are claiming I am doing.... cos its not me that is posting articles that have nothing to do with children being circumcised, unless you think that adult females having sex is relevant to babies being circumcised.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
Not quite. It is about removing from parents the right to have circumcision performed on a child unless there is a pressing medical need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
No one is shutting anyone out or trying to stop them debating the issue. Dont be so melodramatic. It is true that on our side there is an agenda, and we argue it but so do those on the other side. Is there something wrong with wanting to stop what we believe is a serious infringement of a child's rights? Most of us have not abused anyone in this debate and to suggest that is to stretch the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
The fact is that people are hearing both sides of the debate. That is why in most countries circumcision is not done routinely, why three quarters of males in the world are uncircumcised and why in the USA the numbers of routine circumcisions of new born children has been dropping steadily over the last few decades.
thats why most of the thread is people that are against circumcision and telling other people how they mutilate their children and telling them that their opinions are irrelevant.....Quote:
Originally Posted by sammie19
its not who is saying it, its how much its being done......
no there is nothing wrong with wanting to stop it.... its your choice to take that stance..... and like I said, its admirable, until you see the result of what happens.....
the reasons why many people are not circumcised, is parents have a choice and choose not to... not cos they are well informed of the risks etc... but cos they choose not to.....
the well informed statement is used in a number of cases where a decrease is happening.... a example is the anti smoking group in NZ stating that the rates of smoking are dropping cos the people understand the risks better.... yet a nationwide survey showed that people did not give a shit about the risks,.... it was the cost that drove them to stop.... a pack of 30 cigarettes in NZ, is $18 and soon going up to $21.....
its been realised that the smokers are not quitting at the rate claimed, of 1000 smokers a week.... they are actually growing their own tobacco and smoking drugs cos marijuana is now cheaper than cigs..... the cops will tell you that, but the anti smoking campaigners will not......
another example is the anti drink driving campaign... no extra costs to alcohol, no extra tax, just advertising.... and the drink driving rate is climbing out of control......and people are constantly being advised of the risks and dangers of drink driving....so they are well informed.... but do they care... or is it more to do with their rights.....
something I said many times earlier in the threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Katja
hence my stance, I did not view it as wrong or right, cos its medically needed at times.... and doing a medical circumcision on a child or adult, doesn't change one from wrong to right or right to wrong
but didn't you tell me yourself, earlier in the thread, that it was not about removing rights but empowering the children.....
you want to see empowerment of children gone bad.... check out the NZ abortion and privacy laws.....
until a female is 16, she can not have surgery without your consent....
but under the abortion and privacy laws, she can have a abortion at any age... IE 12,13, 14 etc and legally, you are not allowed to be informed about it by a doctor, nurse or hospital unless the CHILD agrees with it... or your signature is needed for emergency surgery as a result of the abortion....
imagine getting a phone call to go to the hospital to sign consent for the surgeon to operate on your daughter cos of a abortion gone wrong, at the age of 12/ 13 etc.... and you thought she was at a friends place......
for a country of 4.2 million people, we have a abortion rate that is equal to the US and sweden, at a average 20 - 22 abortions to every 1000 pregnancies according to the NZ abortion stats....and that is not including the under 15's that are not allowed to be recorded......
the morning after pill and abortions are known as the *best * forms of birth control and we have one of the highest rates of STI's in the world......
katja, they wanted to give children, rights and empowerment to make choices..... and the children are doing it....and look at the result.....
circumcision is a safer area, I will agree...... cos the people that are empowered, will have the choice when they are more mature enuf to make choices..... and thats why I respect the right to circumcise as a adult......
cos look at what has happened in NZ, when we empowered children with something that they are not ready to handle and deal with on their own.....
Honestly you do waffle on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
In England and Wales the abortion rate last year was 17.5 per 1000 pregnancies and in Scotland 12.4. For girls under the age of 16 it was 3.9 per 1000 pregnancies in England and Wales even less north of the border. It hardly shows that under 16 girls are particularly abortion mad. The highest rates are among 16-19 girls but that isnt surprising given their bolt to freedom and the appalling sex education which are provided. Half of all abortions are for women with partners so are they too irresponsible as a species?
I have not studied new Zealnd but I will be surprised if their statistics are so bad that the world is comming to an end. You are typical of a certain kind of eprson who draws out every statiistic and makes it as black as can be. I do not consider an abortion rate of less than 0.4% among girls under the age of 16 in this country appalling. You do not record stats in your country fine but I bet they are somewhere and I will be surprised if they are so bad they deserve the kind of rebuke you give it. That they could be better no doubt and should be, but (ain the UK at least) they are improving, but a figure of less than 4 per thousand pregnancies is not something we should be so hysterical about.
The young are bad. They are out of control. I have heard it all before and there are always going to be rotten apples. But most are not bad and most are not rotten apples.
They should be respected for what they are. Children and young people who are our future. They will never be perfect, but they are not as bad as adults like you make them out to be.
It doesnt matter how children behave in any case. Or young teenagers. Not in the context of this debate. What matters is the respect we give them and the realisation and knowledge of who they are themselves and to respect. We do not give them that by forcibly removing a part of their penis or any other part of their body when there is no sound immediate medical reason.
For a certain person claiming that circumcision has nothing to do with a man's sexual pleasure, a woman's sexual pleasure, or even another man's sexual pleasure here's something you should read. Also there are writings from men who were cut as adults.
You do lose an enormous amount of sensitivity. It has no effect on ejaculation, or whether you can get an erection or not. Because you lose so much sensation you have to work much harder to get the same sensation which affects sex completely.
Performance artist Peet Pienaar,
who filmed and exhibited his own circumcision in 2000
I have encountered people who assume that sex with an ‘uncircumcised’ man is unpleasant. Some have even gone as far as to say, it would be ‘nasty’. There is the stigma that men with a foreskin are unclean. It is time for this myth be laid to rest. The male with a foreskin can keep himself sufficiently clean with total ease. It is not a big production, just wash with soap and water like you would any other body part millions of boys and men around the world do it every day. Anyone who doesn’t bathe adequately runs the risk of causing a ‘nasty’ experience for their mate, whether it’s a male (circumcised or intact) or a female.
Our culture’s tendency to prejudge the man with a foreskin reminds me of a child who claims to dislike a particular food because he’s never tasted it. Think of how many kids have refused to try something new because it ‘looks funny.’
Familiarity is safe. Something new and different prompts fear and suspicion. Myths are generated. The world is flat, the foreskin -- repulsive. There is the assumption that women prefer the ‘look’ of a circumcised penis and the idea pervades that anyone with a foreskin is ‘smelly.’ We often believe negative generalizations about sex and the foreskin even if we know noone ourselves who has actually experienced these things. Having tracked many circumcision discussions online for a few years now, I’d be lucky if I saw more than two posts where a woman claimed to have had a ‘nasty’ experience. Rather, I have seen countless posts where people reiterate the generalization that sex with a foreskin is unpleasant. Therefore, it must be so. Somehow, the assumption alone is enough to worry parents and some young men.
I have been contacted by teenage intact boys online who are afraid that girls won’t like them sexually because they have a foreskin. (See The Sexual Preference for a Circumcised Penis and It's Disadvantages) This pervasive, constant knocking of the foreskin, a very natural, healthy, part of a male’s body, should stop so that young men who are intact do not become confused and worried. Before they’ve even had the chance to fully experience that their foreskin is definitely sexually worthwhile for both him and his mate, he may be affected by the omnipresent incongruous generalizations. He begins to question whether the girl will like an uncircumcised penis. He can get beyond the negative programming our society continually plants, by learning about the benefits. He can be confident, and if necessary, he can explain these benefits to a partner who also has been affected by this misinformation. Visit Male Sexuality - Foreskin Anatomy (and be fully prepared to see graphic photos of the male organ.)
Circumcision Diminishes Sensitivity
A recent medical study concluded that circumcised men engage in a wider variety of sexual practices than uncircumcised men. [Perlman] “Although there have been no studies to confirm the idea, it is a ‘reasonable hypothesis’ that if circumcision diminishes sensitivity during intercourse, then men will seek more effective stimulation through other forms of sexual activity or masturbation.” [Van Howe]
“Research published last year in the British Journal of Urology may well explain the links between circumcision, frequent masturbation and oral sex, however. A group of doctors headed by Dr. John R. Taylor at the University of Manitoba discovered that the small sheath of foreskin tissue removed during circumcision is filled with extremely sensitive nerve endings and mucus membrane cells. The head of the penis itself is extremely insensitive to light touch, although it can be stimulated by heavy touch, they found. That lack of sensitivity in the head of the penis may well account for an increased need by circumcised men for the more intense stimulation that masturbation and oral sex can provide, according to Dr. Robert Van Howe...”
The sexual experience of the male can directly affect the female experience. Mentally speaking, if a male’s sexual experience is immensely filled with pleasure, it will usually enhance her experience. In fact, it is often said that “sex is between the ears, not between the legs.” It has been suggested by circumcised men that any loss of sensuality can therefore be overridden mentally. Possibly this is true for some. However, mental effects on sex must vary widely. Some people are less mentally ‘plugged in’ then others. No matter what, it wouldn’t be an issue if all the sensitive nerve endings of the foreskin were never removed in the first place.
Personal Accounts of The Female Experience:
“I've had a pretty modest number of lovers, but my uncirc husband is definitely, far and away, more sensitive than circ men I've known. This is such a plus - it is much more exciting for us both (the prematurity mentioned in some posts has never been a problem).”
AOL Member, 4/13/99: I have experienced both cut and uncut. Uncut is by far better, the feelings are more exquisite. It is gentler and the man seems to enjoy himself more. Size made a difference with some as far as reaching orgasms sooner and easier, but that might just be a fluke of my own anatomy, but orgasms with the uncut smaller one were equally if not more enjoyable. This was a long term relationship.
Sharon, Age 44, April 11, 1999 - Most of my boyfriends have been circumcized. I had more problems with size (some too large & impossible to use) than with cut or uncut. However, I had a few that were uncut. I was totally fascinated at looking at them with all the extra skin, and I discovered that since the penis goes in and out of its own skin, the vagina does not get sore from frequent sex. It is a much smoother process. I have had times when I was having frequent (what I call 'nuclear sex' at the beginning of a relationship) and got so sore and raw, from the common circumcized penis, of men in my age group, I had to sit in a hot bathtub, and then smear cortisone cream on my vulva. With a 'ragtop' that does not happen.
My present guy is circumcized but I accept that. I wish all guys were uncut, and I would never have a son of mine cut. I have never seen anything listed in the arguments against circumcision that it makes sex much easier and less painful for the woman. . . . I had more steady relationships with cut men simply because in the baby boomer age group there seem to be a lot more white men who are cut. I never performed oral sex on an uncut guy and they never seemed to want it. I assume they were getting enough stimulation from regular vaginal sex.
Being American born and 35, the chances that I or my peers to have experienced sexual relations with both intact and circumcised men is a rarity. Of the few friends that I know that have been blessed to experience both intact and cut first hand, we all agree.....the anatomically correct penis is a much better ride. I don't want to go into details *as I will start blushing* but at one point in my life I lived with two men....one was cut and one was intact. I have had the opportunity to compare the two side by side at the same time. If American woman only knew.....
A Talklist Member, 3/8/99
“I had my son circumcised at birth. His father was circumcised and all of my previous boyfriends were circumcised! My father and brothers were circumcised along with my cousins! It was just the way I was brought up to know.
I recently divorced and started to date again. I fell back in love with a wonderful all American born hunk! Blonde, blue eyed and full of muscles! We got serious in our relationship and that's when I saw my first uncircumcised penis. I was mesmerized and didn't know what to do next. He sensed my hesitation and asked if I had ever seen one before. I told him no and he proceeded to educate me first hand.
I learned and experienced the true nature of god's gift. The endless pleasures it gives to the both of us during foreplay and sexually. I found I could last longer without getting sore and to experiment with different oral techniques that I never could have performed on my previous lovers.
I would like other women to post their same experiences in detail. I feel that by opening up and letting the public know about the sexual benefits of having an intact partner would open the eyes of many skeptical women like myself and perhaps spark their curiosity to want to go out and experience it for themselves. In turn, this will help eliminate circumcision in the future.
If I knew then what I know now, I would have left my son intact so he and his future sex partner can enjoy the same experiences I have gratefully experienced.” Posted in Circumcision Discussion Folder, Moms Online, AOL in January, 1999. Put on this site with express permission from the poster, Samantha.
“Well, my college boyfriend was from Spain, so he wasn't circed. And I absolutely loved his penis. It was so sexy and exotic to me. In fact, I'm extremely disappointed that my husband is not intact.” In another post, the same person said: “Circumcision can harm sexual relations. If you've ever had sex with both a circed and an uncirced man, you'd know. Some women say that it doesn't make a difference, but I know that it definitely did for me. (Think "ribbed for her pleasure".) So I *do know better... and yes, I have heard a man complain about something he lost when he was 24-48 hours old.”
“Circumcised penises look ugly and unnatural to me! Also, with an uncircumcised penis, when you rub the penis with your hand, the foreskin makes it "glide" up and down easier. Sex is better, too, for the same reason - the foreskin helps it slide in and out better. My husband was the first man with an uncircumcised penis that I had had, so I had nothing to compare to with my previous partners. If my husband ever dies and I start dating again, I will look for an uncircumcised man. The sex is better, and I can't stand the sight of a circumcised penis. Not only that, my husband's penis seems far more sensitive than my other partners' were, so he seems to get more enjoyment out of sex, which helps me enjoy it more. The circumcised penis is ugly, ugly, ugly!!!! The penis intact is beautiful, natural, wonderful! I can't imagine ever sleeping with a circumcised man again.”
In later years, dry and painful intercourse is usually explained by the idea that women lubricate less. But sex with uncircumcised men is described as much more comfortable.
This future scenario is described very appropriately here: “Well, since you've been through menopause, your vaginal lining is much thinner than it used to be. You also have much less lubrication. Luckily for you, your husband is not circumcized. When his penis enters your vagina, it is one mucous membrane meeting another, and entry is easy and pleasurable. You shudder to think what sex would be like if your dh was circed, because your friends tell you that the glans keritinizes (sp?) over the years, and the skin becomes thicker and drier. Forcing the dry, leathered penis into your ever drier and thinner-skinned vagina would be less than wonderful...”
Personal Accounts of The Male Experience:
My sexual partners also developed a preference for the uncircumcised penis. The one I am currently with enjoys performing oral sex on me very much, and believes that my penis is A LOT more sensitive than some circumcised men's, mainly because of her expert use of the frenulum, which gives me many "mini-orgasms" along the way, and plenty of aftershocks. I believe my orgasms through oral sex to be very powerful, almost nearing the experience of a female orgasm. Though we practice much less intercourse than oral sex, I have always found intercourse to be very pleasurable.
My partner will probably send in her account of the differences between her experiences with cut and intact males. You are correct in saying that a lot of it depends on the attitude of the male towards his penis, and his comfort with it. I have become VERY comfortable with mine, and would even entertain the idea of going to a nude beach. Because of this, all my sexual partners (okay, there were only thee of them... *S*) have developed a preference for intact men, though they did not have any prior dislike of them, to my knowledge, but were mainly unaware of the differences.
I believe a penis should be left intact unless absolutely necessary, and would fight to prevent the procedure should I one day have a son, as I would view that with absolute horror. And I pray that I, myself, do not have to have it done at any time in my life. I have gone from feeling very bad about myself and my anatomy to the polar opposite, loving myself, my body, and my penis. I am very proud to be uncut, and I can't help but feel a bit lucky.
I just finished reading almost all of the information on John Erickson's web site, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child, and I must say, I am impressed. I recommend this site to everyone, especially those folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics. In particular I would like to mention the series of photographs titled, "the three zones of penile skin." These [GRAPHIC] photographs suggest that, for coital purposes, the penis is actually an internal organ. We can easily see this in the dog, whose foreskin is thick and covered with fur. It is an internal organ and the thought of circumcising a dog is therefore repugnant to most of us. In fact, I would venture to guess that for most mammals the sexual part of the penis is similarly internalized. The photographs mentioned above tend to support the thesis that, for sexual purposes at least, the human penis is also an internal organ. As a 64 year old intact male who has engaged the female vagina (another clearly internal organ) in intercourse thousands of times, I can vouch for the fact that Mother Nature got it right, and that the biblical deity who flim-flammed Abraham into externalizing his organ and those of his descendants, got it wrong. There is no better sex than sex between two consenting internal organs.
The circumcised folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics should delay their position statement until they have digested the material at Mr. Erickson's web site. Then they should take the position - a position clearly rooted in reality - that circumcision has no benefits, but has many disadvantages, and is contra-indicated. February 1999 - Permission granted to feature these comments here from the poster, Raymond Doherty
When I was 13 my body was growing, and like many teenagers, my hormones were raging. One night I had an erection that quickly turned painful. When I looked at my penis I discovered blood... blood coming from a tear in the skin of my penis. I was painfully aware that at that time I did not have enough skin to cover my own erection. It took several weeks for the tear to heal, with many lesser tears occurring any time I had an erection.
When I was 21 it happened again... This time while I was in bed with a girlfriend. The pain and embarrassment cannot possibly be described with words. Again it took weeks to heal, with several tears occurring while I was healing.
Do not [attempt to] rationalize the "minor discomfort" that an infant feels to the pain and suffering of those who have had painful erections, abnormal disfigurements, complete penile loss, and loss of life. (Did you hear about Dustin Evans Jr who died in Cleveland OH on 11/22/98)? This is a post excerpt from entry in Ethics in Wound Care discussion group under the thread of Anti-Circumcision, also posted in AC Talklist by MAC Member on 12/26/98
“Later in life, the foreskin plays an important part in arousement, penile sensation, and ease of penetration. I had my foreskin removed at the age of 47 to avoid those old age problems I read about. What I discovered is that I lost about 50% of penetration pleasure. ...I feel that I made a mistake to reduce the level of sensation and expose that very sensitive bare penis tissue to jockey shorts, athletic supports, etc. I believe the unit was meant to be covered and protected until ready for use. I believe I would have enjoyed the added pleasure of sexual intercourse with my foreskin intact.”
Getting circumcised was the most foolish thing I've done in my life. I had it done when I was 27.
It 's now been three full years since this grave mistake was made. Having grown up in the U.S., as hard as it is to admit, I got circumcised purely out of curiosity, as the subject had been so close to the top of my mind for all my life.
I was quite sexually active before marriage, and had a pretty normal sex life after marriage for two years before my reduction. Now I am essentially only interested in oral sex, as vaginal sex does not provide the detailed sensations that it did when I had a foreskin. The last thing a foreskin is - is a hindrance to sex. The analogy of "seeing without color" is perfectly apt to describe sex without a foreskin. Rather than being a touch-sensitive organ, it becomes merely a pressure-sensitive tool. BIG DIFFERENCE! 1/3/98
Describing what it’s like for her husband who was circed during his 20s, another person says: “He said that he lost a lot of sensitivity and masturbating with the foreskin was very nice and he missed doing that.”
“At 40 I sure wish that I had the benefit of the sensory nerve endings lost to circumcision and the protection and comfort afforded by a foreskin. All the interaction of my brain and thought process will never replace the pleasure lost. I want it back!”
I was born in a family where half of the boys were circumcised and half not. I always wondered about that and when I developed a subcutaneous cyst under my penis shaft, I discussed its removal and along with that a complete circumcision. I was 46 years old.
The surgeon removed too much foreskin under the shaft to excise the cyst and healing was uncomfortable during erections. When my healing did occur I did enjoy vigorous sex as the new wound stimulated me, however, I never did get over the uncomfortable sensation of the penis head.
I am now 64 and sure wish I did not lose that foreskin. In later life, in my opinion, not having that foreskin stroking sensation, is a bummer. If I had my druthers, I would opt to keep what my body came with, a complete foreskin. When a male gets older, that foreskin has to help him reach a climax due to the friction of the movement of the foreskin. I don't know because I ignorantly had mine removed. However, if there was a donor and no chance of cross contamination, I would certainly consider a foreskin transplant just to see if I am right. 6/18/97
I was very interested in your web site on the differences of circ'd vs uncirc'd men. I am a 28 year old straight male that was circ'd as a baby. I am currently practicing non-surgical foreskin restoration. I have found that there is a tremendous difference in feeling now that my glans has begun to heal from all the years of constant rubbing on my clothing. I haven't regained enough skin to cover the glans while erect, but I can feel the lubricating effect of the foreskin while making love semi erect. To those men thinking about getting circ'd later in life, Keep what you have! 12/18/97
I was circumcised in my late 30s after fathering three sons (all of whom were routinely circumcised shortly following birth). My surgery was entirely elective (both my spouse and I prefer the look of a circumcised penis) and I found it a both brief and relatively painless procedure. I entered a local hospital as an outpatient and the operation took less than 30 minutes. I was under local anesthesia (several shots at the base of my penis quickly numbed the organ). The urologist, using a freehand technique, first made a dorsal cut in my foreskin and clamped off the bleeding tissue. He then clipped away the foreskin around the entire circumference of my penis, using what appeared to be surgical scissors and a scalpel. He then neatly sutured the incision which was located approximately one-half inch below the corona. Bleeding was minimal and I felt no pain whatsoever, only a notable pressure where the foreskin was being cut away. Watching the surgery was fascinating.
No pain followed the operation although I would wake up with nightly erections (the pressure around my incision was uncomfortable but not really painful, quickly going away when the erection faded). Within two and one-half weeks the sutures were gone and I was left with a small, barely noticeable circumcision scar.
My first post-circumcision sex was normal and quite enjoyable, as it had always been prior to the surgery. With each erection I felt some pressure around the circumcision scar for a month or more after my surgery; however, the sensation of pressure soon faded and finally disappeared completely.
Now, decades later, having lived about half of my life intact and half as a circumcised male, I believe I can speak with some experience and authority on the subject, providing the type of personal information you seek. Following are my candid conclusions:
1. There is no question the head of my uncircumcised penis was more sensitive than it is today. Also, penetration was easier to achieve before my surgery, especially when my wife was not fully aroused and moist. Regardless, both oral and vaginal sex remain pleasurable today. Other than these two changes, I found absolutely nothing different between pre- and post-circumcision sex. My circumcised penis has less notable odor but that was never an issue or problem prior to surgery.
2. After my circumcision, over time I found I was able to delay ejaculation longer (perhaps due initially to the lack of penile sensitivity and later I assume due to my advancing age). This delay, for whatever reason(s), pleases -- and pleasures -- both my wife and me. If it is due even in part to my circumcision, that must be considered a plus.
3. Finally, I believe that adult circumcision is a mental as well as a physical act. Living in a country during a time when most males indeed have been circumcised, I honestly have enjoyed my post-circumcision years more than the first half of my life which were marked with some ridicule and feelings of "being different." Combine that with a spouse who always expressed a personal preference for the look, feel and taste of a circumcised penis and I cannot help but believe that I did the right and proper thing in having my own foreskin removed. My only regret was that I did not act sooner.
Circumcision certainly is not for everyone. For example, I would agree that routine infant circumcision is a practice whose time has passed. Inflicting needless pain on newborns -- or anyone -- is a barbaric act. Further, I respect the opinions of those individuals who have had adult circumcisions and lived to regret it (perhaps a foreskin restoration is the logical answer for these men). However, only people who have never been circumcised -- women and intact men -- can fail to fully understand and appreciate the welcome mental relief and physical satisfaction that an adult circumcision can offer a man and his mate.
As previously noted, my only regret is not being circumcised sooner in life. I know the differences for myself and find them largely inconsequental in the physical sense but quite major in building one's self-esteem and self-confidence. My experience and feelings may be the exception to the circumcision rule; however, my wife and I are happy with the results and that is what matters most to me. 7/14/98
Regarding your request to seek personal information from those, male and female, who have had sex with both circumcised and intact, I offer my experience as a male, circumcised, but half-way down the road to full foreskin restoration.
I guess I had what was the typical circumcised penis... no problems that were obvious to me, but the usual naked glans. When erect the skin was taught and I could feel the tension. The dominant sensation during sex was friction of the rubbing along the shaft and glans of my penis... not unpleasant, but I didn’t know the difference.
Now, 2-1/2 years into an on-again-off-again foreskin restoration I can definitely report differences! Cosmetically it's pretty obvious.. when flaccid the glans is usually half-way covered, or at least the skin bunches up into loose folds around the glans (my flaccid length varies a lot.. anywhere from 2 to 5 inches). Erect, the skin remains loose.
During sex, the dominant sensation is no longer friction, but the tension of the skin being pulled in and out... an additional pleasurable and very different sensation entirely absent before restoration. It's hard to describe, but I must say it was well worth the time and effort put into restoration... certainly enough to encourage me to complete my restoration efforts! Peter, 3/6/98
I was circumcised by personal choice at age 23. I am fifty now. I can not tell any difference in sensitivity whatsoever. I can not imagine how my pleasure would be more if I had not been circumcised. I was exposed before I was circumcised during intercourse and am similarly exposed now. There is absolutely no difference. It is much easier to keep clean now and my partner enjoys giving oral sex much more and more often. I am very glad I was circumcised and have no regrets. I have met numerous women that prefer circumcision. I have met none that did not. 1/16/98
I'm a British, uncircumcised, married man aged 37. I have what by any standards would be considered a tight foreskin. It retracts when my penis is flaccid but can't get more than halfway back over the glans when it's erect. And yet:
- I've never experienced pain in masturbation, intercourse, etc etc.
- I have never had any urinary tract infections.
- I'm quite happy as I am !
In fact I only found out that my penis wasn't "normal" when one of my girlfriends remarked on it once. Briefly - we were having fun at the time. She never mentioned it again. Neither have any of my other sexual partners (between 5 and 10, if I'm counting).
I suspect that my foreskin might be unusually long (I've never had another erect man around to check with... it's not the kind of thing us guys tend to compare notes on, y'know...), but in any case, it has plenty of "play" to move up and down. It just seems like maybe the opening is too small (not stretchy enough) to fit all the glans through.
I went to a doctor once - he was a urologist. I thought he might be able to help maybe make the opening a little wider. But he was of the "any problems - snip it off" school. He was amazed I had children! He also said (really - I am not making this up - "maybe your wife doesn't mind, but a good-looking chap like you, you'll be getting yourself a mistress, and if she has any sort of sexual experience, she'll think you're weird". Well, I live in France, after all, but I think the guy probably spends too many hours each day looking at penises!
In my case the decision is clear: if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and in my case, it might not be exactly visually correct, but it works ! 2/10/98
I’m 33 and recently married. My father was circumcised at birth but he had no strong feelings one way or another. I guess that after the births of five daughters my parents didn’t really see why their newborn boy automatically needed surgery. The doctor in our small hometown was flatly opposed to circumcision and counseled them, also. I imagine that whole town was full of foreskins by the time he retired.
My mother told me about my penis’ being different from most other boys’ (90 percent in my age group) about the age of six. Unfortunately her way of conveying this made me feel ashamed, or at least very private about it. I wouldn’t shower or urinate in a trough with the other boys because I feared ridicule. (I was undoubtedly right, and it took years before I would even use an open stall in a public men’s room with my foreskin held back.) Showering at scout camp in my underwear, though, earned me plenty of razzing.
Finally, I explained to my best friend why I did that, and he told me his cousin was intact, too. It was a mild relief to exchange this information. Only one other boy I ever saw was intact. I spotted the red tip of his child’s foreskin as he was dressing in the school locker room. I didn’t know him, though, so it would have been difficult to ever raise the subject with him, boys being so averse to anything that might be construed as a gay come-on.
My favorite fantasy when I was a teen was to be lying on a bed and have all the attractive girls I knew standing around me, stroking my penis. They watched each other and me, and all of them got really worked up by the competition, since the winner would be the one with my penis in hand when I reached orgasm. I suppose this was my way of winning acceptance for being physically different from all the other boys -- difference as an advantage with the girls.
I was 18 the first time I had sex, but the room was so dark I don’t think the girl ever got a look at it. We were both awkward for a number of reasons, and she tried to make me climax manually with baby oil, which just didn't work. I showed her how the foreskin functions, but her efforts still fell short. I think there were too many other complications in that encounter for it to have gone well at all. The second time was a girl who took my penis in hand and slowly drew the skin all the way forward a couple of times before we proceeded with intercourse, as if she wasn’t sure what to make of it. It was a spur-of-the-moment encounter, and we never followed up.
My early girlfriends weren't close enough emotionally for me to talk much about my foreskin, or else maybe I was too hung up on the matter to be frank and forward about it. None of them seemed to dislike it. I keep it clean, so I guess the most obvious objection never came up. Mostly they wanted to know why I was an exception, what my parents were thinking. (Incidentally, my parents and I have not discussed the matter since the conversation noted earlier. We were not a close family.)
As an adult, I discovered Uncut magazine on a newsstand. It’s a gay porno magazine with pictures and stories about foreskin-related experiences. It was the first time I really “shared” other men’s experiences with their intact status, and I felt much better about myself from that point on. I quit hiding my penis in the gym, for one thing. Other men stared, but of course none would ever say anything. I should add that I’m not gay and have no desire for a same-sex encounter; however, being in such a small minority makes me curious about other men’s penises. I suppose this is akin to being one of only two persons of one race in a room full of people of another race -- your consciousness of what makes you different is greatly heightened.
Now I’m comfortable with my intact status, though socially careful about speaking up on the subject. As you undoubtedly know, the Web is just about the only place where foreskin comes up as a matter of conversation.
I mentioned earlier that I’ve just gotten married. Since my foreskin is the looser variety, reaching just over the tip when flaccid and automatically rolling back when erect, my wife really didn't know about it at first. (It was, of course, always erect by the time she saw it.)
Finally, after our first two sexual experiences together, I pointed my foreskin out to her and showed her what part comes off in a circumcision. She toyed with it a while, then said she couldn't imagine why anyone would want to be circumcised. She decided then that she would encourage any girlfriends of hers not to have their baby boys cut.
Later, while I was entering her lying on her back with her knees up high, I reached below us and held the skin back to demonstrate how abrasive a cut penis can be when there's no rolling skin to "give" just a little with each stroke. She got a look of sudden familiarity -- that was how it felt to have sex with her first (circumcised) boyfriend, and she had never liked the feeling. During sex, his fully exposed penis would dry just enough to make the friction slightly painful. She had thought that was the way sex was supposed to be.
I think intact men who are considerate can offer their wives a benefit. Before entering my wife, I roll my foreskin forward, then push slightly inside her to moisten the loose skin and glans. Then I hold the skin still and push the glans through it and into her. She loves this because the head enters her with no “dry” friction.
My wife has been wonderful about my foreskin. She loves and is fascinated by it. Once, on a trip to the zoo, she started laughing uncontrollably in the reptile section. I asked her why, and she pointed to a turtle just pulling his head back into his shell. “He has a foreskin, too!”
In my opinion, the most persuasive arguments against circumcision are (1) it is unnatural to force an internal organ (the glans) into becoming an external organ, and (2) if God meant for us not to have foreskins, he wouldn’t have put them on us in the first place. 3/10/98
Here is a description of the differences in sex between circ and uncirc men from a circumcised man who is gay. This will surely raise a lot of eyebrows. I would imagine a lot of you will get upset and question how I can include the experience of a gay man when talking about this. Obviously, women’s bodies work much differently. A woman can describe the difference for her personally, but she cannot feel what a man feels and cannot describe how it might be different for him. We women are often criticised for even discussing circumcision because we don’t have penises.
In my opinion, a gay circumcised man would be quite qualified, possibly even more than a woman, to clearly define the differences. Who better to give such a review? What we are talking about here is “the sexual value of the foreskin”. A gay man knows what men are capable of feeling. I would think a gay man has more insight because, unlike a woman, he possesses the very same equipment he is talking about. So here is what was sent to me from a gay man:
“I do think I have a lot of insight about this subject... Over the years I have noticed that uncircumcised men plainly have more intense pleasure (I see it as uncontrollable and very intense), erections last much longer and with much less stimulation. Circumcised men always need to be stimulated just so or they loose the feeling of pleasure.”
So the rest of you know, the people adovating the law are little better than neo-Nazis. Here is a sample of their propaganda. The adversary of this image taken straight from nazi propaganda is the blonde, Aryan superhero "Foreskin Man."
Playing the Victim card and Anti-Semetic card yet again eh? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
Yeah, those little girls in Africa should stop whining about their non-mutilated genitals too! You're a mindless ideologue.
The people who are against circumcision are not Anti-semetic or Neo-Nazis. You can claim that the comic's author might be but he's not affiliated with the law or voting, just producing a comic book that is a social commentary on why religious male genital mutilation because of an outdated religion is bad, nor does it mean that someone is "Anti-Semitic".
Jewish law also allows circumcision to be postponed indefinitely if a child is ill, offers a waiver to hemophiliacs, and lets parents skip it all together if two of their sons die from their circumcision. It's not as if it wasn't anticipated there would be risks.
There are even Jews who are against circumcision and they refuse to have it done to their sons at all I have dated them.
Incidentally, some of these risks arose after the rabinnical council decided around 150 AD that instead of just cutting off the bit of foreskin that overhangs the glans in a newborn, as had been practiced previously, the entire skin should be detached from the glans and cut off behind the head. This also meant that dads could no longer safely do it, as instructed in Genesis, and a new operator (mohel) had to be introduced.
Nowhere in the Torah or Talmud does it say you should have a party around the circumcision with out-of-town guests and serve lox and carrot cake.
Neither being "private" nor "ancient" protects a barbaric ritual from legitimate human rights condemnation. See female genital mutilation in Africa.
"TWO MORE BABIES have contracted herpes through an ancient circumcision rite, leading the city's top health official yesterday to release an open letter to the city's Orthodox Jewish community urging caution.
The practice, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh, involves a practitioner, or mohel, drawing blood from a child's circumcision wound by mouth."
A Jewish or Muslim man should be allowed to decide for himself whether or not to have his foreskin removed in observance of his religious beliefs.
Forcing a religiously-motivated circumcision on him before he is an adult violates his religious rights. It's his penis, his beliefs, his decision, and it should not be anyone else's.
Religion does mess with peoples' minds. A lot of crazy stuff has been legitimized by religion. Why is it so important to do this to a small child? Could it be that if they can have a choice the vast majority would reject silly bronze age superstition?
Regardless of your idea on religion. Circumcism on someone who doesn't want it (or is too young to make a decision) absence any medical need is mutilation. A lot of people don't think of it that way because it was routine for awhile, but it is still mutilation. No different that female circumcism... which people get all riled up about. It still takes over a third of the nerve endings in a penis and can cause more harm than good. Infants should not be forced into taking on other people's beliefs. They can wait until they are adults to make their own decision about it.
Technically, the foreskin prevents kerotinization of the skin that it would ordinarily cover, reduces requirements for lubrication, and provides a degree of protection from external irritants.
As in the skin dries and becomes tougher... much as what happens to the skin at the heel of your foot. Obviously not to the same degree but the process is similar. The skin at the head of the penis is "normally" kept moist but when circumcised, the skin that would maintain moisture there is gone and thus allows the head of the penis to dry out for an extended period of time.
In simpler terms... ever jack off and had it feeling like it's rough on your skin? Bingo... keratinized skin.
As in the skin dries and becomes tougher... much as what happens to the skin at the heel of your foot. Obviously not to the same degree but the process is similar. The skin at the head of the penis is "normally" kept moist but when circumcised, the skin that would maintain moisture there is gone and thus allows the head of the penis to dry out for an extended period of time.
In simpler terms... ever jack off and had it feeling like it's rough on your skin? Bingo... keratinized skin.
If you want to cut off parts of your own dick as an adult, knock yourself out - just don't sit there and tell me you have a "right" to do something like that to someone else, anyone else - especially children.
The debate is whether it's ethically okay to perform an irreversible medical procedure on males who are unable to consent to it and in the absence of any consensus in the medical community that the procedure is warranted in all cases.
How anyone can argue that it is ethical totally escapes me.
I will say that I find it rather ironic that this is the same community which is offended by the idea that a religion might teach that a man having sex with another man is morally wrong and thinks that such a belief is antiquated and bigoted given the other parts of that same religious text that are gleefully ignored. It is Hypocritical in Judaism how they claim that getting a tattoo is somehow "mutilation" yet they practice mutilation of the male penis to infant boys.
And here y'all leap to the defense of that same religious text and its instructions to perform optional cosmetic surgery or a mutilation on an infant's sexual organs... why? Because it's somehow more rational than the prescription against eating pork or wearing a garment of mixed fibers? Getting a tattoo (in violation of that religious text) is a personal choice but having the most sensitive part mutilated off your child's dick is sacrosanct.
I assume you mean advocating you offensive little shit. Don't you dare equate what I do or people like me on this or any other issue as being little better than neo-nazi. Your insecurity doesn't become you and drugstore cowboy has a valid point about you playing the victim and anti semetic card.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
You claim to be a lawyer just answer me this little poser; by advocating legislative change within a democratic society is necessary how is that neo nazi? You yourself are advocating use of the law to resist change. Does that make you also a neo nazi?
Or is it only those who advocate change who are neo nazi? Do you not accept that legislative change is very often necessary and desirable? If so, and you advocate legislative change does that not also make you in your own ill considered words, a neo nazi?
I suggest that as a lawyer you prepare your arguments a little more thoughtfully and carefully before you are hoist by your own petard.
Katja,Quote:
Originally Posted by Katja
If I am not mistaken he was not referencing anyone on this site in his statement, just merely pointing out/describing to... those who are advocating for the law to pass in the US who are inside US borders. Yours and others (outside of the US) opinions though relevant to the forum. Are not relevant to a law you can not vote for, which if I am not mistaken, is the basis for this post.
I find the venom in your post to Jamie uncalled for. This is only one topic of many he has ever posted on. Experts none of us are, but to base character on one topic in one forum when one topic does not a character make.
Keep it Civil. The Nazi card was played early on in the topic and it wasn't offensive then, shouldn't be relevant now..
I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.
Walks into thread. . . picks up hot dog and puts catsup and mustard on it. Picks up cider on the way out.
Fuck this shit, man. :tongue:
*Taylor*
Dude, why don't you ever include your sources? How can anyone believe you without your links? It sounds just like stuff you'd make up.Quote:
Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy
I notice how you are quoting stats for your part of the world, when I was refering to my part of the world...... and something that is happening in MY country as a result of OUR laws..... not your country as a result of YOUR laws......Quote:
Originally Posted by Katja
its not about making the youth out to be bad, as the youth are not adults of a past generation that can see a difference and a change.... the youth of today are growing up with things they see as normal.... while people like me can remember when pac man and space invaders hit the scene for the first time and we were blown away by it......
the youth may be far better informed and have far better access to info than we did growing up...... but the rights they have, are also far wider than we had.... and they are growing up, seeing that freedom and their rights are normal..... people like us, know that it never used to be like that.....
its part of the reason we have anti abortion groups surfacing everywhere.... we created a situation where abortions could grow at a alarming rate, not cos the youth are bad... but cos there is a alarming increase in the number of abortions....and the youth do not see they are doing anything wrong, just exercising their rights that they have been informed about
sure you can argue that the youth are not as bad as I make out.... but I think I will trust the stats that are showing that the youth of today are out of control.... and the government that is now working to cut back on the freedoms the youth have..... and if they are reacting to PUBLIC PRESSURE to take action... then its clearly not just me that can see there are issues....
so here is the link to the stats page for NZ....since you have not studied them....
NZ abortion stats
remember its not about making the youth look bad.... its showing the results of rights of choice going bad...... when use of a condom could change so much.... IE STI, abortion, teen parents etc..... but the right of choice with a condom is still a right of choice
I found what you quoted at mothersagainstcirc.orgQuote:
Originally Posted by mikey3000
If you want to actually read or find my sources you easily can. At least I'm not posting junk science like you are.
lol just out of curiosity, how the hell do some people manage to have a conversation / debate face to face... cos they can not copy and paste everything, they actually have to talk......
and out of curiosity... if people are making the * right * choices, based on being well informed, and doing the right thing, why do we always seem to end up banning things or making them illegal.... unless it proves that we can not respect freedom of choice, we want to control what people do with their lives....
its not really about respecting freedom of choice is it... its about control of others..... in the same way the anti LGBT want control over marriage and the right to tell others what they can and can not do.... when often, the anti LGBT are not interested in being married themselves.....
its what I am seeing in the thread... control over other people and their children, when we have none ourselves, so can not really live by the same rules we want others to live by......
yeah I can see jamies point very clearly..........
*Yawn* Big surprise! Yet another Holocaust reference! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by jamieknyc
Don't you ever get tired of the bad stereotypes, faux martyrdom, and false victimhood that you fall into? Do you ever stop being too easily offended and get tired of forcing political correctness and your brand of censorship on people?
Have you actually read the comic strip, all of it? All of the issues?
The character Foreskin man is not antisemitic. He obviously likes jewish people. His girlfriend is jewish and the baby's mother is his girlfriends sister. He seems to love the baby Glick in the comic. The conflict is between the boy's father (Jethro - pro cutting) and baby Glick's mother (anti-cutting). That said, you don't need to hold old traditions as unchangeable issues. Judaism must evolve past the 2000 BCE era. Reform Jews who are against male circumcision yet still Jewish realize human rights, infant/children's rights to their genitals, science and love are key to success and that mutilating a boy's penis while there are other ways to have a covenant with G-d besides mutilation are what actually work instead of mindless religious dogma, groupthink, resistance to change, and performing outdated barbaric male genital mutilation do.
If you have issues with the comic or the artwork in the comic books, take it up with the comic's author and the comic's illustrator.
Then again I'm sure you'd consider the TV show Southpark, the Jewish characters on Southpark, the character Eric Cartman on Southpark and Southpark creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone all to be "Anti-Semitic".
Earlier in the thread and when you first mentioned the comic strip you falsely claimed that everyone that's against male genital mutilation and for this law is somehow "Anti-Semitic" in your mind.
Orthodox and Conservative Jewish political groups are now claiming that everyone that's against male genital mutilation is somehow "Anti-Semitic". Orthodox and Conservative Jews are also highly homophobic/biphobic, against GLBT rights, and against same gender marriage.
I know many Jews who are against circumcision and they consider it to be mutilation, and they did not get their sons circumcised.
I guess you'd consider them to be Anti-Semitic as well since they're not conforming to their religion's silly dogma or familial pressures that say that they must mutilate their sons' penises.
Then again perhaps you do not even consider these Jews who are against male genital mutilation to actually be *really* Jewish at all in your mind or opinion. I'm sure you do not consider Jews that get tattoos and do not keep Kosher, and who were born Jewish or raised Jewish but who are now very liberal Jews or even Atheist Jews or Agnostic Jews to somehow not be Jewish at all.
The people who are against male genital mutilation and who are for this proposed law in California both in the United States and worldwide, are not Anti-Semitic even if you wish that they were.
I'm in SF and I am for the proposed law that will ban male genital mutilation here. Most people gay, bisexual, and straight of all ages and even Jewish and Muslim are for the circumcision ban as well since there needs to be equality when it comes to genital mutilation as it is hypocritical to say "Female Circumcision is wrong, illegal, rightfully illegal, and disgusting! But male circumcision is fine, must be done because of a religion, must be protected by law, and it's OK to mutilate a baby boy's genitals!"