Will respond after work. But Cain, you know I won't respond to the sentence-by-sentence breakdown like that. Paragraphs, man. Don't shave off the tip of the point you're trying to make.
Will respond after work. But Cain, you know I won't respond to the sentence-by-sentence breakdown like that. Paragraphs, man. Don't shave off the tip of the point you're trying to make.
Even if you are completely correct and it has no downsides, what about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's the real problem with it. It's irreversible after all (as mentioned before, pierced earlobes heal, but this won't grow back).Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowheart
And that's even besides the fact that even if the circumcision itself has no downsides (which I doubt, but okay), it is still surgery, and surgery comes with risks. I'd say it's pretty unfair to a baby who has no choice in the matter to give him unneeded surgery, for no medical reason whatsoever, just because the parents like it. I don't give a damn if a consenting adult chooses to get it, but a baby? It's unneeded and irreversible, man.
It reduces the number of nerve endings, but as Dread was quick to point out, he can jettison spunk like the rest of us
I think that was what he was saying ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe ive seen and experienced both and have a preference. A big part of that preference is not enjoying plucking pubes from between my teeth or feeling like a wet steel wire bush has just been scrubbed across my face for the last half-hour... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Ah yes, the old ", or your a paedophile" dichotomy...Quote:
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 ;) )
Not my favourite, i have to say.
Napoleon to Josephine. <3Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
First, its warm. Second, a chicken covered in hair isnt exactly a big improvement, if thats the angle youre taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Third, of course it subjective :D.
I always wondered who the "hairy" section of the porn sites i visit were for...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.
Also, it could be pointed out that your preference is clearly a kink. Its not the hair itself or the look of the genital area that turns you on, its something else.
Yeah, ive already said i dont agree with the "if you dont like a big haiy snatch you must be a paedo angle. For this to be true you would have to have a worldwide conspiracy of pornographers aiming at subtly releasing paedo-like movies and pictures while staying within the law. Unlikely. Maybe they just think it looks better.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Why do women shave their legs? Or their armpits? Is it because they (or men) love little girls' armpits and legs and want their women to look the same?
Why do almost all bosses require a man to shave? Does my boss want me to look like a little boy or does he want me to look smart? Is latent paedophilia the reason behind my companies acceptable appearance policy?
You agree with me so you must be great in bed? Yeah right ;)Quote:
You're a hippie at heart. And probably a great lover. :heart:
It's subjective. :)
But I was thinking how self-conscious it'd feel to know your lover thinks "my god this is like a wet steel wire brush scrubbing my face". Probably not condusive to uninhibited sex. :(
The other part isn't a comparison to pedos so much as knowing grown women and men have pubic hair, and it's perfectly normal.
Adults being out of shape, wrinkly and gassy is normal too, but i dont usually make "normal" my highest aim.
She can always shave it :)Quote:
But I was thinking how self-conscious it'd feel to know your lover thinks "my god this is like a wet steel wire brush scrubbing my face". Probably not condusive to uninhibited sex. :sad:
I hold myself to the same standard. If it was deemed necessary for my current luxuriant bush to go in the aid of receiving more enthusiastic and frequent oral sex then, with all due respect to being "normal", id have the weedtrimmer fired up faster than you can say "ride-on lawnmower".
First of all, it was only two points, really (repeated several times), so I find your refusal to address any of it (not to mention the chance to make $5,000) pretty weak and disingenuous. Secondly, you've pretty much ignored the "paragraphs, man" posts I've made too, which further convinces me that this latest objection is really just a cheap cop out - you don't want to address my points, because you can't satisfactorily defend the idea of forcibly mutilating an infant's genitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one has a problem with consenting adults voluntarily choosing to mutilate themselves, or their genitals. But forcing infants to undergo genital mutilation surgery, for *no* reason other than aesthetics or social inertia or... whatever... is just reprehensible. If *you* want to demonstrate your commitment to and love of Yahweh by having your junk skinned (when you're old enough to make that decision), that's fine. Good for you... I guess. But it's not OK to show your faith by skinning a helpless fucking infant, Goddammit.
Ride-on-lawnmower, you're a hoot Spawnie. :D
Josephine and Napolean, huh? I was thinking Cleopatra and Marc Antony. :noob:
It is, in a way, more romantic. Josephine was significantly older than Nappy and not especially attractive. Being the big dick in europe means he could have had anyone, but there is (iirc) no evidence he ever loved anyone but Josephine. The famous "dont bathe" is seen either as disgusting or delightful depending on your fancy. Personally i fall on the side of delightful.
Other unresearched opinions by spawnie - most of the romance of ant & cleo is from the shakespeare. Their actual intimacy seems best read either politically or sordidly, depending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Kids get surgery all the time. We take kids tonsils out. We throw unwilling kids into orthodontics (often involving tons of pain and sometimes surgery) when they always fracking hate it. I don't see a huge difference except that babies don't remember being circumcised.Quote:
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.
Once again, I think there is notable reasons why it can be beneficial and I don't think there are downsides to a properly done circumcision. Which makes it an elective (and in some cases for the parents, religiously imperative) procedure.
Cain's attempt to compare foreskin removal with actual penis removal is laughable and pointless. Removing foreskin doesn't disrupt function or sensation. And once again, I find it interesting how much dudes who aren't circumcised seem to care about this.
Circumcision is not medically necessary. Your penis was mutilated when you were an infant for strictly cultural reasons; reasons so strong you defend the practice even now when it is so plainly senseless.
Tonsils have a medical reason. Most, if not all other surgery does, too. Orthodontics has a point, but AFAIK surgery in that area is only done if there is a medical need for it (not cosmetic). Plus it's at higher ages, and, for example, I had a choice in the matter (and said no to it, and I don't regret that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm sure you have a point that it can be beneficial, but it can also not be. And there is risk involved, and it's irreversible, and there is no reason why you can't wait until higher age to do it. It's just a cultural thing.
Way to totally ignore some of the literature that's been posted suggesting some possible benefits, but not enough to make it either necessary or useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
And way to misuse the word "mutilate".
What an empirical mind you are demonstrating.
Of course it's a cultural thing, but that doesn't mean it has zero possible merit and should be banned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Increasingly, people aren't so sure tonsils have a totally iron-clad medical justification. Tonsil removal has certainly declined a lot. And orthodontic surgery is definitely done for cosmetic reasons.
I'm not really interested in getting into this debate, but I wanted to share one little bit of information for the discussion. It is not uncommon with certain genetic disorders to have abnormal or ambiguous genitalia (a famous example is CAH, or 21-hydroxylase deficiency), especially for girls. Despite the fact that it is not medically necessary, it is a fairly common (and largely accepted) practice to carry out some form of genital reconstructive surgery on infants born with such conditions. In the past, some parents have opted for gender reassignment surgery, but for some time now, it has been fairly standard to restore the infants to an anatomy closely resembling 'normal' for their genetic gender.
Is this genital mutilation, and should it be disallowed?
I prefer to pretend those people don't exist. Kinda gross.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
When I saw that Lewk had posted in this I was curious what his views were. Needless to say I didn't expect that post commenting on that issue.
FOR MEDICAL REASONS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Not because some crazy moralistic fuck-wit decided that skinning someone's genitals, without anesthetic (or consent) was a reasonable way to punish little boys for the heinously immoral act of masturbation.
Third-degree burns prevent acne. That doesn't make it alright to light your infant child's face on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, that *is* the argument made in favor of female genital mutilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
And where, EXACTLY, the fucking fuck did Cain do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
"Genital mutilation" is not synonymous with "penis removal," thank you very much.
Third-degree burns prevent acne. Therefore, we should not ban lighting childrens' faces on fire, because there's a medical justification for doing so. Can you not hear yourself or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
When parents get kiddy-winks with some linear combination of genitalia instead of the usual either-or, the end result tends to be very unhappy for the child and usually for the parents as well. If trannies have it hard, these people often have it worse. Yippe. Never mind what was done to the kids without even consulting the parents in those golden days when people like Lewk were the moderates.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
God's little jokes, huhQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I read your article. The inflamations the study references are resulting from lack of cleanliness. Yeah, the kid without a foreskin isn't likely to have a foreskin infection. By that logic, cavities can be prevented by removing your teeth. I think an argument can be made that washing yourself is better than mutilation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
While this is only very periferally related to the topic, it is definitely an interesting conundrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
What happens to these children when they grow up without surgical intervention?
No, I meant the other articles. The emotions here are fascinating.
You're not fascinated, you're annoyed. I can see it. And I'm not emotional about it, truly. I understand the supreme power of culture and I don't think circumcission is anywhere near the biggest cultural issue the US has to deal with. What is fascinating is an entire country of people that circumsizes their little boys without a thought will point, in outrage, to a culture in Afirca that circumsizes it's little girls and call them barbaric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm not sure how peripheral this is. Fundamentally, the parents of the children choose reconstructive surgery so their children will live a socially 'normal' life wrt the appearance of their genitals. The surgeries do not come without significant risk, of course - impaired sexual function is not uncommon, along with the usual issues with major surgery. It is performed on infants who have no say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
If a particular cosmetic procedure is considered socially 'normal', even if it may have potential adverse side effects, should it be allowed on infants? That's the real question everyone is dancing around. If the answer is 'yes', then it makes sense to allow circumcisions and 'FGM' and other variants in a socially appropriate context. If the answer is 'no', we need to understand society's acceptance of some but not all such procedures and discard the 'forcing cosmetic surgery with potential side effects on infants' line of reasoning.
Isn't that what we've been doing---challenging that infant male circumcision is not "socially normal", just as FGM isn't normal?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I lost track. Did anyone explain why the Jewish bris can't be done at age of consent instead of infancy?
Then one would be forced into accepting FGM in societies in which it is normal. Some friends of mine recently did a rotation as med students in Mali. I believe they said that in the south of the country, something like 95% of the female population had received some variant of FGM. Is this acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Similarly, in communities in which male circumcision is the overwhelming norm (Jews, Muslims, some American Protestants), wouldn't it be just as justified?
The point I'm trying to make is that the underlying rationale being used here is flawed, unless one also believes that genital reconstruction of infants should be forbidden in such cases as I described above.
That's why we're arguing. The AAP did an about-face in policy, and contradicts WHO's policy.
Anyone care to inform me about Jewish tradition, and why it's done on infants? What's the reasoning, besides continuing a historical ritual?
Don't you love how GGT pretends *and perhaps even thinks* she's written a reply, when she's completely ignoring everything you wrote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Not very many people in this thread are using the argument that its wrong because its not normal. Nor have i seen much "dancing around". Except maybe from dread, but he has natural rythym.Quote:
If a particular cosmetic procedure is considered socially 'normal', even if it may have potential adverse side effects, should it be allowed on infants? That's the real question everyone is dancing around.
Ive seen
1) Medically unnecessary
2) No consent
3) Outdated tradition
4) Dangerous - Can cause harm if botched
5) Harmful (potentially) - reduces sensation
6) Argument that it prevents STDs is either unfounded or weak
7) Argument that it is unhygienic is wrong or irrelevant
8) Argument that it should be done to stop masturbation (kellogg) is morally dubious
And thats just off the top of my head.
Oh that's your opinion on everyone who isn't a straight white christian. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.isna.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
OMG does no one have a shred of training in logic or rhetoric?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawnie
My point has nothing to do with whether it is 'normal'. My point is that 1-5 (the real arguments used here) could also apply to genital reconstruction surgeries performed on infants. Thus, either we need another reason to disallow FGM and male circumcision, or we need to also disallow genital reconstruction surgeries on infants.
Have you found someone who would argue for "reconstruction" for infants? And furthermore, unless you want to draw up some lines on which cases would warrant procedures on infants, you're entering murky and very vague territory. And lastly, even if the doctors don't know what the fuck they're doing, the goal of "reconstruction" is to make something usable out of something that in the worst cases isn't; FGM in particular and male circumcision to a degree only serve cultural needs for removing non-essentials (or some essentials in the case of FGM).Quote:
Thus, either we need another reason to disallow FGM and male circumcision, or we need to also disallow genital reconstruction surgeries on infants.
I don't see where wiggin explained WHY Jewish circumcision is done, let alone done in infancy instead of consent or bar mitzvah.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
He went on about "community norms" (including Jews) then Mali, then onto reconstruction of genetic anomolies. If I missed the reply to my Jewish question then so sorry. :rolleyes:
Except "Jewish circumcision" and social "norms" relating to such practices have absolutely no bearing on what he was talking about, and he never referenced them in any way. He said the current discussion of the thread was moot and illogical if it ignored another topic, and he then went on to present that topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's like he presents a topic of apples and you reply by asking "but why do carrots grow in the ground"? He might as well not have posted at all, because your question completely ignores everything he said.
There are three Jewish men posting in this thread. I didn't think it was so horrible to ask how it's explained as a RELIGIOUS RITUAL according to "Jewish Law". Especially since not all Jews are orthodox, practice kosher eating, or wear yamulkes.
The other topic isn't the same, IMO, because it's about repairing genetic genital ANOMALIES. The foreskin in not a defect or anomaly. I was curious if Jews define foreskin as a defect or something along those lines.
But don't let that keep you from riding your high horse around, Fuzzy. :bored:
So, again, just as I said, you ignored everything he wrote in your "reply" to him. He might as well have not posted anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm calling BS on this. I'm almost certain it does disrupt sensation in many cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Can't handle God's world, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Or maybe it's actually proof that God didn't create us? The Devil is in the details, eh? :D
No, it's not genital mutilation to repair a genetic abnormality or ambiguous genitalia. It's considered "medically necessary" for the healthy formation of gender identity, and should be allowed. As time goes by physicians are reluctant to do gender reassignment surgery in infants and often delay it until they're a bit older. It's a complicate process, not to be taken lightly, and they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Foreskins aren't abnormal and don't produce mental health or identity disorders in adulthood.
That's why (over time) surgery is delayed. Sometimes the neonate's hormones take months to dissipate, and swollen vulva shrinks. (Anyone who's had a baby girl knows their vulva is "swollen" because of the mother's hormones.) Simple chromosomal blood tests don't always make things so clear-cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
What I'm asking is how and why infant male foreskin cutting is still considered "socially normal", when all the medicine and studies show there's no medical necessity.Quote:
If a particular cosmetic procedure is considered socially 'normal', even if it may have potential adverse side effects, should it be allowed on infants? That's the real question everyone is dancing around. If the answer is 'yes', then it makes sense to allow circumcisions and 'FGM' and other variants in a socially appropriate context. If the answer is 'no', we need to understand society's acceptance of some but not all such procedures and discard the 'forcing cosmetic surgery with potential side effects on infants' line of reasoning.
So my answer would be NO, and go back to questioning "society's acceptance of some but not all such procedures".....on genitals. Particularly the Judaic tradition. Since people are reluctant to tell parents how they should or shouldn't practice religion when it comes to medical issues, this falls into the trifecta of religion + culture + parenting.
Christian Scientists who choose NOT to do something medical for their children are held accountable and taken to court, if they deny important care to their baby. Non-religious parents can be forced legally to vaccinate public school-aged children.
Circumcision, however, is an ACT of doing something to a baby. Committing is different from omitting. Protestants and others can be convinced/encouraged that the old attitude toward "cleanliness" is a myth. Insurance companies have decided it's medically unnecessary as well. Physicians have said they understand cultural and religious reasons, but I'm interested in the Jewish tradition and why it's considered a Jewish Law.
No, just because a large part of a population does something doesn't make it acceptable. That's why WHO has a policy condemning FGM, and it's a cultural practice (and attitude) that needs to be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
No, just because it's a common cultural norm doesn't make it justified. Just because millions do it doesn't make it right. That leaves me back to the RELIGIOUS aspect. afaik it's only a Jewish religious "law", not a Muslim or Christian one.Quote:
Similarly, in communities in which male circumcision is the overwhelming norm (Jews, Muslims, some American Protestants), wouldn't it be just as justified?
As a Jew, would you please expand on that for me?
I disagree. Reconstruction genital surgery on infants is done to repair anomalies. Can you show me where Jewish Law states a foreskin is "abnormal" and needs to be removed?Quote:
The point I'm trying to make is that the underlying rationale being used here is flawed, unless one also believes that genital reconstruction of infants should be forbidden in such cases as I described above.
Again, I disagree. Genital reconstruction is not the same as cutting off a perfectly natural, healthy, NORMAL foreskin.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
If some places (and physicians) can say FGM is acceptable, that's how others will continue to justify male circumcision....they will give a predominantly religious reason.
It's almost as if AAP bent backward to include continued male cutting in the same category as female "pricking", in order to appease the religious aspect. That's why I'm asking for clarification of the traditional Jewish rite, and why it's done in infancy and not at age of consent. Because I'm not familiar with Jewish Law.
Thank you in advance.
Also, fuck you Fuzzy. :)
I call bullshit; you can't possibly compare situations. In one the procedure is based on the condition of the subject. In the other the procedure has no relationship whatsoever to the condition of the subject but is executed on the basis of the subject's gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm asking what people here think, not trying to read anything into the situation. Please, tell me - do you think it's reasonable to carry out genital reconstruction on babies for purely cosmetic (and social/psychological/whatever) reasons? Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has yet to answer the question. You can argue about whether some cases have valid medical justifications but at the end I'd like an answer. I'm perfectly fine with answers either way, I think it should just inform our discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
If you want to know what I think, I think that this is all murky territory. In principle, I can see being hesitant to carry out any of the three discussed procedures (a variant of FGM, male circumcision, or genital reconstruction) on a child, but I can also see valid reasons why parents might feel it's best to do so (I think the reasons are best for reconstruction, okay for circumcision, and not the best for FGM, but I do see where they are coming from in all three). In principle, I think that society (and governments) should stop short of actually outlawing a practice it finds repugnant, and instead trying to influence parents through education, recommendations, and compromise (for example, by the AAP's not unreasonable move to suggest a compromise to FGM that has no real functional impact but still fulfils cultural/ritual desires). At the end of the day, it's awfully hard to legislate what a parent can do to their child, anyways.
I call BS. You could make the same argument about 'medical necessity' for circumcision or FGM. Either it's okay to do to a kid or it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Oh? You don't think a kid in a highly circumcised community won't have psychological issues? What about a woman in a place where it is expected to have some variant of FGM, and a huge stigma is attached to a 'whole' woman?Quote:
Foreskins aren't abnormal and don't produce mental health or identity disorders in adulthood.
They aren't delayed until an age of informed consent, which is all that matters here.Quote:
That's why (over time) surgery is delayed. Sometimes the neonate's hormones take months to dissipate, and swollen vulva shrinks. (Anyone who's had a baby girl knows their vulva is "swollen" because of the mother's hormones.) Simple chromosomal blood tests don't always make things so clear-cut.
Medical necessity has nothing to do with social norms.Quote:
What I'm asking is how and why infant male foreskin cutting is still considered "socially normal", when all the medicine and studies show there's no medical necessity.
*yawns* I didn't come to this thread to talk about this, nor is it your business what my religious beliefs or knowledge may be. Either look it up yourself or find someone else to bother. I came here to broaden the question. This is really a debate about how much parents can irrevocably change their children before the age of consent, often with serious ramifications for their future. I think that it's not as clear-cut as either side has been suggesting. I don't really give a fuck about the male circumcision debate here - I think that the extreme of FGM is a much more worthwhile discussion. I'm not so sure it should be outlawed.Quote:
As a Jew, would you please expand on that for me? [Similar bits... snipped]
Define 'anomaly'. Certainly it's not 'normal', but it's not 'normal' to have a foreskin as a child in some countries. You're imposing an external value system on the way a child is born. If all their parts work, why change it in a surgery with potentially huge side effects?Quote:
I disagree. Reconstruction genital surgery on infants is done to repair anomalies.
Oh, please. The 'condition' of the subject is that their genital anatomy doesn't look normal (even if it functions just fine).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Actually, i do.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
However, i misread your post and didnt notice you had put "reconstruction". Even the second time i read it i nearly missed it. My mistake.