Religious Circumcision

[elian]

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

[darkeyes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

[DuckiesDarling]

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

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

[darkeyes]

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

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

[DuckiesDarling]

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

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

[Long Duck Dong]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be a lil more sensitive, will you..

[tenni]

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

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

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

[DuckiesDarling]

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

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

[tenni]

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

You claimed that Fran not being a biological mother and I not having a son renders our opinions 'moot' to yours. If it's about doctors giving parents of males advice in favour of circumcision then I can see why you'd think that. Most wouldn't question the opinions of doctors when they claim that a 'routine procedure' is in the best interests of their child, especially if we didn't have accsess to the research they had. We'd likely think, "Well they know best!", even if we have no idea what they are talking about.
You can't be blamed for that! Neither can you serously think that Fran was accusing you of sexual molestation. She'd have no reason to, and would call a spade a spade if she did, I'm sure. To molest is to physicaly attack/assault a victim, a violation of persons rights etc. Not just a sexual assault! It's obviouse what sense Fran would use 'molestation' in regards to circumcission. She has explained her views ample times.

[Long Duck Dong]

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

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

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

[DuckiesDarling]

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

[Long Duck Dong]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[dafydd]

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

[Brian]

And I think that is enough for now...

- Drew

[Brian]

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

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

- Drew

[darkeyes]

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

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

- Drew

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

[Gearbox]

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

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

- Drew

Thank you lovely man.

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

I am attempting the opposite of 'fanning flames', by pointing out the obvious:- Words have different meanings in different contexts. They will not only have one meaning just coz you decide they do. The accusation of sexual molestation has not been made by Fran in this thread! YES it is a word more recognized for it's sexual context as in 'molested via sex' , and is a poor choice of words due to that common association. But now you know that she doesn't mean what you think, you can relax and not get offended?

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

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

[Velorex]

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

[Long Duck Dong]

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

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

[Gearbox]

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

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

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

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

[Long Duck Dong]

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

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

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

[tenni]

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

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

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

[jamieknyc]

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

[tenni]

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

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

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

[jamieknyc]

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