Circumcision #2

[dead0man]

go

[Governor Scott]

I'm not very interested in revealing this information to the forum.

[realisticidealist]

No, and I'm glad I am.

[Dr. Cynic]

No and I don't think it has ever really mattered to me.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

No. Female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is not.

[ZuWo]

No. Female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is not.

Exactly. I find it highly disturbing when people refer to male circumcision as "mutilation".

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I have no problem with my having been circumcised. I only know one person who ever has, and he posts on this forum.

[Vasall des Midas]

No. Female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is not.

Exactly. I find it highly disturbing when people refer to male circumcision as "mutilation".

Why do they call it "female circumcision" anyways? Circumcision means "cut once around". Incidentally there are female circumcision practices that are as harmless and symbolic as male circumcision - not the most common practices though - and there are non-harmless, actually mutilating practices for boys. Australian Aboriginals have some pretty fearsome stuff done to their dicks around puberty.

[Secretary Polnut]

No. Female circumcision is mutilation, male circumcision is not.

Exactly. I find it highly disturbing when people refer to male circumcision as "mutilation".

Why do they call it "female circumcision" anyways? Circumcision means "cut once around". Incidentally there are female circumcision practices that are as harmless and symbolic as male circumcision - not the most common practices though - and there are non-harmless, actually mutilating practices for boys. Australian Aboriginals have some pretty fearsome stuff done to their dicks around puberty.

Yup it's called sub-incision... they often need to squat to urinate afterwards.

[Holmes]

Of course circumcised men don't think it's mutilation because most of the time, they've never lived with a foreskin. It has a purpose. It's easy to say it's not important if you've never had one to begin with.

I think mutilation is too strong a word, but I do find the practice... bizarre and undesirable.

/shrug

[white trash heroes]

last option

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Of course circumcised men don't think it's mutilation because most of the time, they've never lived with a foreskin. It has a purpose. It's easy to say it's not important if you've never had one to begin with.

I think mutilation is too strong a word, but I do find the practice... bizarre and undesirable.

/shrug

What is the purpose?

[Free Palestine]

I lack a foreskin.  And while I don't consider myself "mutilated" necessarily, I do think it would have been nice if the decision were up to me, and not up to my stupid parents.

[Hatman]

Of course circumcised men don't think it's mutilation because most of the time, they've never lived with a foreskin. It has a purpose. It's easy to say it's not important if you've never had one to begin with.

I think mutilation is too strong a word, but I do find the practice... bizarre and undesirable.

/shrug

What is the purpose?

What's its evolutionary purpose? Not too sure. Maybe to protect the head of the penis and thus to ensure its sensitivity for sex, which results in more pleasurable sex, which means more babies, and thus the survival of the species. That's my hypothesis.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

No. Never ever have been even remotely bothered by it and find the whining of uncircumcised males hilarious. It's a REALLY ing stupid thing to be bothered by.

[Free Palestine]

It's a REALLY ing stupid thing to be bothered by.

Except if you believe in youth rights.

[Vasall des Midas]

Of course circumcised men don't think it's mutilation because most of the time, they've never lived with a foreskin. It has a purpose. It's easy to say it's not important if you've never had one to begin with.

I think mutilation is too strong a word, but I do find the practice... bizarre and undesirable.

/shrug

What is the purpose?

What's its evolutionary purpose? Not too sure. Maybe to protect the head of the penis and thus to ensure its sensitivity for sex, which results in more pleasurable sex, which means more babies, and thus the survival of the species. That's my hypothesis.

It's as useful as an appendix. But the removal is not as potentially dangerous as that of the appendix.

[Communists For McCain]

It's a REALLY ing stupid thing to be bothered by.

Except if you believe in youth rights.

Well yeah.

Obviously the inability of consent from male babies should weigh on the minds of parents when they decide to cut the skin.  In my mind, it's much more moral to suffer through much pain of your own consent than it would be to suffer through just a little bit of pain without your own consent.

I seem to recall in Genesis that Abraham got circumcised at the age of 86.

I don't really miss my foreskin and I don't view it as like the cure for cancer.  However, that doesn't mean I don't see the immoral implications of circumcising a boy at eight days old when he can barely communicate effectively.