No, I was asking the Jewish men here. Something tells me they'd shudder if "religious infant clitoral cutting" was an accepted practice. But maybe not, judging by the apologetic attempts to validate the AAP's stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
:confused:
I was just wondering how the European males on this forum feel about it. We all know they must be dirty and carrying all sorts of STDs, eh? :o
Very long edit: Cultural/ religious practices that maim others should not be protected by the medical community. The medical community shouldn't be endorsing doing something to a minor, let alone an infant, that isn't medically necessary. It makes them seem less credible.
I'm perfectly okay with the decision to circumsize if it is seen fit that there is a medical need for it, just as any other surgery is performed on a child. But not just because it may or may not reduce STD transmission (in the males only BTW, doesn't really help females in that respect). It's not a vaccination, or a 100% known protectant. Taking drastic measures on a person's body for such a minimal gain is really ignorant. Sex education and protection is a much better way of doing things.
Well, Lor weighed in against it. He's European.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
And I'm uncut, and would just like to say that I'm not dirty and carrying all sorts of STDs because of my foreskin. :o
Hubby is the same way, and I have no complaints. All is well in our household! ;)
Cat, I tried to make it clear that the medical community doesn't condone infant male circumcision for medical reasons, but they also won't condemn it for religious reasons.
Even if the whole medical community agreed to stop cutting baby boys in the hospital setting for ANY reason, a bris can take place in the home with a 'trained' rabbi.
I read your post, GGT. I know it's hard for them to condemn practices in our PC world. And it's not just religious people that do it anyway; there are many small practice doctors that will probably never change their position on it no matter what AAP recommends.
I guess I expect better of our "medically advanced" society but I shouldn't. We mock other cultures practices but still perform barbaric ones on our own. We really are no different; humans are in constant hypocrisy of themselves no matter the race or nationality. (Myself included at times)
:up: to Cat.
You're gestating a girl. If it were a boy and your husband was a cut gentile, what would you do? Hypotheticals are hard that way :(
Girls will come with strange decisions, too. Will you 'make' her get her the HPV vaccine, knowing what we know (or don't know) now, based on what your pediatrician says?
I get what you are saying, and luckily I'm not in that position. It would be a tough one I'm sure, especially if extended family get involved. I'd hope I could educate my partner to understand why such a tradition is silly, but that's always easier said than done.
As far as HPV goes, I'm hoping by the time we get to that bridge more data will be out, and we can make a well-informed decision then. My current issue with the vaccine is that it only takes care of certain kinds of HPV, and needs vast improvement in my eyes.
Unfortunately, the rumor is that school systems are going to start requiring it so I may not have the choice whether or not to do it.
I'm not against vaccines by the way. I plan on having baby girl vaccinated for all of the necessary ones.
There's the rub. Between my first and second children, the Varicella vaccine became a public school mandate. That's Chicken Pox. They also changed the college mandates for meningitis vaccines. But my son said screw that, and just decided to skip the "mandated" physical exam before he started college. Ha, he also refused to get a campus ID with a photo.Quote:
Unfortunately, the rumor is that school systems are going to start requiring it so I may not have the choice whether or not to do it.
I'm not against vaccines by the way. I plan on having baby girl vaccinated for all of the necessary ones.
:bulb:
Well, I prefer my men cut.
That's an aesthetic call. Adult men can decide that for themselves. The "risks" of the procedure are different in adult men than infants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
But now you've opened up the discussion of WHY do you "prefer cut men"? Does that come from looking at porn? Looking in the mirror? Wanting someone who looks different than your own body?
Porn currently shows women looking like hairless pre-pubescent minors, with fake boob implants. No wonder people are confused.
Smell, feel and the simple fact I know better what to do with them :) Which makes sex less awkward :)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Are you saying men with foreskin smell bad?
I've never had sex with a foreskin, but I've bathed them enough. Smegma. Yeah, it sounds as bad as it smells. :eek:
Only if you don't wash for a week. And then all your other bits smell too. :rolleyes:
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Nothing wrong with letting a grown up decide to skin his genitals (or pierce her clit, or inject ink under his/her skin with an electric-powered needle), but forcing it on non-consenting people is wrong.
No shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Gee, genitals smell bad when you never wash them? I can only imagine how bad an unwashed vag would smell... so let's use that as an argument against heterosexuality (or women in general), shall we?
I don't know, but as a woman I'd hate to be stuck in a desert with no showers, wearing a body blanket all the time.
Maybe that's why burkas were made in the first place....
It's one thing to keep a foreskin clean, even without water. It's an external organ. But women ovulate and menstruate.
:eek:
Hm. I see a few of you have mentioned cleanliness as some kind of issue in this circumcision debate. Quite aside from the retardation of cutting off something because a boy might not clean it throughly enough, is this seen as a relavant part of the issue? Because i have to tell you, my wang smells no different from any other part of my body unless (like any other part of my body), i dont wash it. Girls genitals seem much the same in this regard. And cutting their bits off for hygiene reasons doesnt seem to be brought up very often.
Same as why male models shave their legs and chests to look boyish while working out to have big muscles?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Meh, im not convinced by this. If we wanted them big and fat, with saggy tits and big bushy pubes, we would just be accused of having mother complexes. Now were accused of being quasi-paedos.
Maybe rather its because in movies all that pubic hair and fat looks gross, while in the bedroom its better to rub your face against soft smooth skin than a big mass of hair (or stubble)
Until proof is shown, im going by the practical reasons rather than the pseudo-freudian ones.
As much as I agree (generally - there is something hot about a little hair above the vag... like a landing strip, guiding me in... :D) there's been a recent deal made in the press about cosmetic surgery some older women are getting - to trim back their genitals, so that their genitals do actually look pre-pubescent. Ewww. So maybe there is something to GGT's idea... other than the basic, biological reality that pubescent women are biologically attractive to men, because they represent the best chance to have the most kids in a monogamous relationship (since they have the largest number of available years of fertility).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
Doi. Just like women are biologically attracted to older men, who are more suitable to help raise children (more stability, economic resources, etc.), but this mere fact of biology doesn't make all women gold-digging perverts with father issues, any more than all men are pedophiles for being attracted to younger women.
Hi Spawnie :) I asked because I really don't know. I don't look at porn routinely, but I know it's mostly all about hairless flesh and size of boobs or dicks. I'm sure my porn 'exposure' is limited (and someone will come along to tell me what I'm missing)....but there's nothing inherently WRONG with hair.
Shaving, in fact, is what makes hair course and feel like sand paper, since it grows out every day. From men's 5 o'clock shadows to women's legs. And really, if people weren't broadcasting pictures of genitals that looked like pre-teens, or commercials for hair removal, would you really think it's "bad"? No, you wouldn't even have a comparison, to compare.
What's next? Some fashion statement that eyelashes and eyebrows are ugly too? We already have the manly men shaven head, or the stubbly 3 day beard is sexy thing going on.... and "hairy men" getting waxed before they go to the beach.
Should we all just use depilatories to bare our whole bodies and go around that way because it makes sex "more enjoyable"? Slathered in smelly sunscreen lotions and wearing hats? Really?
Hence, waxing!Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Go get a "Brazilian wax" and get back to us. Don't post the pictures, though.
(There's also the currently rather expensive, but permanent, laser hair removal option... personally, something I'll probably do when the price point comes down. Not for all of my pubes, but the ones on my sack and my shaft are definitely gonna go. Shaving those always terrifies me.)
Yeah, women routinely pluck their eyebrows to look "more feminine." What of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Doi? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Now how can anyone talk about labial cutting in women as a "good thing", while we argue about cutting men as bad....
We had some thread about this at the other place, that surgeons would do this to "make their patients happy". But we weren't talking about surgical procedures to repair their bladder so they didn't have to wear adult diapers....
:mad:
The real issue isn't the cut itself, but that the choice should belong to the Snipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Yeah, if some [adult] guy wants to skin his dick, it's his right to make that stupid choice. Likewise, women should also be afforded the right to be stupid, and voluntarily hack off bits of their genitals too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowheart
What's stupid, but fair for the goose is also stupid, but fair for the gander, after all.
a l'orange
Not inherently, no. But it doesnt look quite as nice as a neatly shaved puss. Of course, i dont shave or trim my bush, but thats either cultural or personal. I know a lot of the mafia trim. Personally, if my GF wanted me to, i wouldnt have much of a problem with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
As for big tits, only sometimes, and it depends on the kind of girl you like, naturally. In conversation, most guys ive ever talked about such things with seem like they prefer amateur(ish) models, i.e, natural. Almost no one i know likes the typical brawny peroxide blonde with a hypertan and big fake tits.
No, obvs. But thats no ideal, surely. If you have only ever drunk budweiser and have no scope for comparison doesnt make bud a great beer. It just makes you miss out on the beauty that is a Kwak.Quote:
Shaving, in fact, is what makes hair course and feel like sand paper, since it grows out every day. From men's 5 o'clock shadows to women's legs. And really, if people weren't broadcasting pictures of genitals that looked like pre-teens, or commercials for hair removal, would you really think it's "bad"? No, you wouldn't even have a comparison, to compare.
Pretty much. :)Quote:
What's next? Some fashion statement that eyelashes and eyebrows are ugly too? We already have the manly men shaven head, or the stubbly 3 day beard is sexy thing going on.... and "hairy men" getting waxed before they go to the beach.
The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.Quote:
Should we all just use depilatories to bare our whole bodies and go around that way because it makes sex "more enjoyable"? Slathered in smelly sunscreen lotions and wearing hats? Really?
Well, how would you know that? I mean, as far as "comparing landscape"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
You've either spent way too much time looking at groomed bush meant to look like little girls, or little girls. (Not YOU per se, but men in general ;) )
I suppose sex is now a fashion. After all, being fashionable means being sexy?Quote:
The day everyone does that is the day all the cool kids will start growing long hair and beards, viking-style. Such is fasion.
Hair and vikings makes me think of fish and the sea....
Like fishing for a shallow moving target but you can't make up your mind, because you want the catch to be fast. Well, minnows are easy and shallow, just cast a wide net. Deep sea fishing is much harder. That's not a very good analogy for women, because the catch is either eaten, mounted on a wall, or thrown back.
Maybe that's why mermaids are such a romantic myth....or why fishnets...and pirates.... are considered sexy.
:noob:
While you're here Spawnie, and we're talking about sex and stuff......help me remember who wrote to his lover before they would meet, "Don't bathe". I figured you being our resident poet, that you'd know that. My memory sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Comparing the two is sorta as apples to apples is sorta pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Considering that circumcised men don't have impaired functions (unlike circumcised women), why the vitriolic conclusions?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Your logical fallacy, not my problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Perhaps, in the future, you could not say that it's OK to forcibly skin one body part because it's not the same as another one. :bored:
No, no, we're not going to consider that because it's blatantly untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Even when it goes well, and doesn't result in forced sex change surgeries, suicide and/or a wang that doubles you over in pain anytime you get an erection, it results in a large reduction in sexual pleasure. (As a result of whacking of a fifth of the nerve endings on your dick.) And, I don't know about you, but sexual pleasure *is* the function of *my* genitals.
I'm not being vitriolic, that would be your bias in reading what I wrote. It's a touchy topic but not sure how else to post this question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If Jewish law said a rabbi should cut a female baby's clitoris, would you be okay with that?
How do you know it results in a reduction of pleasure? Our brains interpret the signals we receive and what we're used to receiving. As I'm sure some of the medheads here know, sensation is not the sum of aggregated nerve endings.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
My orgasms are quite nice. And I'm sure yours are too. None of us could ever really know what the other's feel like, but the fact that we both orgasm and want to keep on orgasming whenever we can get it back up suggests things are going dandy.
No, not at all. It's obviously wrong and has a real, discernable negative impact (unlike male circumcision). There's tons of stuff in Jewish law I don't follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Can you acknowledge that recent reputable medical data shows male circumcision can cause real problems in mens' sexual health, and it's not just about *edit* orgasms?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Cain linked to some things, but you seem to ignore it. Why?
Cain linked to botched circumcisions, which probably represent a tiny fraction of all circumcisions. Shall I link to botched ear baby piercings or something?
What other problems are you referring to?
Excuse me, why don't you have the foreskin you were born with again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They're probably not in some study I can link to, but often the circ ring isn't placed quite right. Every baby boy is born with varying amounts of foreskin, and sometimes a "smooth side effect free" procedure can mean a grown man, years later, with a strictured erection (too much foreskin was removed, so when the penis is erect it's forced to take a "bend")Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I suppose you could use this as an argument that a rabbi with a scalpel is better than a circ clamp device. But the human hand's error is why the circ ring/clamp was designed in the first place.
That all means that cutting off an infant's foreskin probably isn't the greatest idea. For any reason.
Is there some Judaic reason the bris is performed on an infant, instead of waiting until his bar mitzvah and asking if he consents?
Entirely subjective. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.
Whereas an entirely unattended-to bush is the biggest turn-on I can think of in terms of womanly nekkid aesthetics. Doesn't have to be a big or particularly hairy bush, but the fact that it hasn't been shaved or Brazilianned or trimmed back is what turns me on.
Agree with you here though.Quote:
As for big tits, only sometimes, and it depends on the kind of girl you like, naturally. In conversation, most guys ive ever talked about such things with seem like they prefer amateur(ish) models, i.e, natural. Almost no one i know likes the typical brawny peroxide blonde with a hypertan and big fake tits.
~
Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Indeed. And most subjective things are learned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Or a little girl you'd baby sit, change her diaper or put her in the tub if things got....really messy.Quote:
I find the shaved look to be quite a turn-off. Looks like cold plucked chicken.
You're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover. :heart:Quote:
Whereas an entirely unattended-to bush is the biggest turn-on I can think of in terms of womanly nekkid aesthetics. Doesn't have to be a big or particularly hairy bush, but the fact that it hasn't been shaved or Brazilianned or trimmed back is what turns me on.
That's what I was thinking, too. It's one thing to baptize an infant with some water and words, it's another thing entirely to cut off part of their body as a religious initiation rite. It's probably even worse to do it for cultural aesthetic reasons.Quote:
Probably because by the time the poor joo reaches bar mitzvah age, there is no way in hell he'd consent. :o
I've been feeling bad about circumsizing my boys for YEARS now. But they wouldn't talk about it with their mom, and I don't expect them to, that's just a bit creepy. So I let it go and come here instead :(
The problem where the babies had no choice in the matter where a permanent, physical change was done to them, instead of waiting until they could make an informed, adult choice for what happens to their own body,....that's a bit of a stickler, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Not to mention that ear lobes aren't the same as genitalia.
Pierced ears can heal over just fine. In fact, there's a procedure done by plastic surgeons on the other end of the scale---women who wore heavy earrings for years and made their lobes droop over time can have it repaired. They cut a diagonal section of tissue and bring it taut, a few sutures and you'd never know.
There's no way to restore tissue that was removed during infancy.
Um, arithmetic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
If you don't believe me, you are free to prove me wrong by skinning another 20% of your cock and reporting back that you don't feel any difference.
So then you're agreeing to get another 20% of your cock skinned, since your argument is that it won't make a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Seriously, I'll put whatever amount it costs in escrow, to be released on documented evidence of you getting another 20% of your dick skinned. Hell, I'll even throw an extra 5 grand on top of the cost of the surgery, for "pain and suffering." If that's not enough, let's negotiate. You seem to think it's not a big deal to force people to get their genitals skinned, so I will pay you to back up your bullshit with actual action.
Well, 5 grand in profit for you to find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
So, again, 5 grand for you to get another 20% of your dick skinned, which should be no big deal if you really believe what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Works for me. Mutilating any part of a baby is wrong, and bonus points if you can link to cases of botched infant genital piercings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught