Joined: 21 Dec 2005 Posts: 663 Location: , Norn Iron
Thanks: 1
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-19-08 15:22pm
Jude-Love
wrote:
fiona05
wrote:
Jude-Love
wrote:
In any case, I do not agree
with the comparison people make to female
genital mutilation. FGM can occur all the
way up until the girl it is being
inflicted upon is 13. It is done in
unsanitary conditions with instruments
that are not intended for medical use.
The reason it is done is not because it is
believed to be more sanitary, but to keep
females from being sexually active before
marriage. I think it's actually pretty
bad that people put it on the same level
at all.
i think it's a legitimate comparison.
yes, female circumcision is a dangerous
and mutilating practise but we are not
talking about the reality of the way it is
carried out (in 3rd world countries, no
proper medical equipment etc) we are
talking about female circumcision in
theory; the idea of it.
the vagina itself is self cleaning. the
labia and clitoral hood are not. so shall
we have all our infant girls circumcised
at birth, in hospitals, with proper
medical instruments? on grounds that it is
'healthier and cleaner'? what would you
think about that?
anyway, why should you think that because
a procedure such as this is done at birth
rather than in adolescence or adulthood
that it must be a less painful experience?
because a baby hasn't got the ability to
convey its pain through words,
perhaps?
If we circumcised infant girls at birth
with sanitary measures, it would perhaps
be a tad bit better of a comparison.
Otherwise, I don't think it would be more
acceptable no. I never said either
practice was acceptable at all.
When something like this is done in
adolescence or adulthood, it won't be
forgotten and it will be much more
traumatizing. I am not discounting what
circumcision must be like for an infant,
but I'm certainly not going to pretend it
is just as bad or worse as being held down
by several people and having shard of
glass shoved in your vagina without
anesthetic. Please. I respect your
opinion, but you obviously are a little
extreme about
it.
sorry if it seemed i was attacking you
personally, i wasn't. i do agree, any
circumcision carried out in a clean
hospital is obviously different to the
kind of female genital butchering that
takes place in many african countries. me,
and anyone else who made the comparison (i
hope) was making it in a general sense.
i believe male circumcision is completely
outdated and needless. there is as little
reason to circumcise an infant male as
there is to cut off a baby girls labia.
but people who claim male infant
circumcision to be acceptable claim it for
reasons which simply don't make any sense.
i think when most people make the decision
to circumcise their children, they don't
do it cos they're evil, they do it because
they think it is best. but to put it
bluntly, most people are ill-informed
about what is best. they have been told it
is cleaner and healthier but this is not
true. in reality, circumcision is a
needless and painful procedure and it
violates the baby's basic human rights.
|
marvel
Supporter
Joined: 09 Sep 2007 Posts: 1104 Location: Toronto, Ontario (but only a private message away)
Thanks: 50
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-19-08 15:51pm
The focus here shouldn't be on whether or
not it's cleaner. Our focus should be on
proper education on how to take care of
your penis. The foreskin has a purpose,
and if it's properly taken care of, it
will serve that purpose. Yes, sometimes
it's too tight or gets infected... the
same can happen with ligaments.. .are we
just going to cut them out. Lets focus on
education and not simply getting rid of
what the "hypothetical" problem could be.
|
Georgia59
Moderator
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 02-19-08 16:32pm
Lilly Ivy
wrote:
Georgia59
wrote:
I never understood the
argument that it's cleaner. Women have
tons of folds and crevices down there, and
no one ever suggested that we cut them off
for the sake of
hygeine.
wow I didn't realize this was on the first
page... but I came up with a nice argument
toward this...
when was the last time you seen a man wipe
it off after he's done peeing? Woman do.
That way the urine doesn't sit in there in
that nice damp dark place festering away.
The way I see it, if a man in
uncircumcised, there's more room for the
urine to stick to and stay there,
therefore more chance of a
UTI.
I understand- but I think it's a lot more
logical to teach a boy how to have good
hygeine instead of just cutting something
off.
That's like saying, your toenails could
become infected someday and don't really
serve a purpose, let's just cut them off
when you're born without anesthesia.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 02-19-08 17:03pm
I think it's a legitimate comparision.
Let people choose what they want to do
with their own bodies, especially their
gentials. Why this preoccupation on what
people do with their bits and pieces? Gay
marriage, differing sex practices,
reproductive choices, circumcision.
Educate up and down, and let them make
their own decisions.
|
Georgia59
Moderator
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5557 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 90
Thanked:32
Posted: 02-19-08 18:03pm
Many girls are circumcised in clean safe
conditions... here in the US, some doctors
will perform female circumcision for girls
from another culture where it is
considered necessary.
I'm not saying it's right, just that I
think it's a fine comparison. They're both
genital mutilation done for reasons that
have nothing to do with medical necessity.
|
preggie meggie
Supporter
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 277 Location: Farmer City, Illinois U.S.
Thanks: 4
Thanked:1
Posted: 02-20-08 20:00pm
I would do it! But I have been rasied to
where that is just the normal thing. Im
not against not doing it eaither, I think
its just prefrence of the parents. I dont
try to change it. If you want to cut then
cut if you dont then dont. I would rather
just for apperance and cleaness. I have
asked guys befor which they would rather
and all that I have talked to but one has
said they would rather be cut and one
wasnt. The one that wasnt was looking into
getting it done as a 18 year old...can you
say ouch!
Just my OP.
|
marvel
Supporter
Joined: 09 Sep 2007 Posts: 1104 Location: Toronto, Ontario (but only a private message away)
Thanks: 50
Thanked:8
Posted: 02-21-08 11:36am
I had a friend who circumcised her infant
boy. Can you say ouch? not to mention he
didn't have a choice in that ouch?
|
Paul86
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Posts: 19
Posted: 03-18-08 14:08pm
What's the point of circumcision?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-18-08 18:09pm
Paul86
wrote:
What's the point of
circumcision?
In the old days, there were many functions
of a circumcision. One reason was that in
desert areas like the middle east, water
was scarce, thus it was harder to clean
yourself. Removing the foreskin removes an
area that needs to be cleaned, thus it is
more sanitary. Today, we have something
called soap, and free access to water to
bathe whenever we want. Thus, circumcision
for sanitary reasons is not needed.
A second reason for circumcision is that
it was believe it would prevent young men
from masturbating and lusting after women,
which in many of the middle eastern
religions is considered a sin. Thus,
circumcision prevented sinning - so they
thought. Obviously, circumcised males
masturbate just as much as uncircumcised
males so there's really no point in doing
it. However, it is considered a right of
passage to some african cultures, and in
Judeism it is considered a mark of a good,
clean man. So there are still religious
reasons to circumcise.
I personally feel it should be the
individual boy's choice, but if it is a
religious tradition I can understand why
it is done. I do disapprove when it is
done "to be cleaner" because that's not a
valid excuse these days.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 434 Location: ,
Thanks: 98
Thanked:55
Posted: 03-19-08 02:26am
The only point in it today is a sense of
control, with the rare exception of actual
medical reasons. Most parents do it
because they are sheep, following the
flock. They want their sons to look like
everyone else-which is funny considering
that the penis is commonly the last part
of a male body allowed to be exposed to
the public-and they want to be "good
parents".
The trouble is these days that good
parents can't be readily defined by what
they remove from their children's bodies
or what hours they work or whether they
breastfeed or not. You'd think that in
this day of "damned if you do and damned
if you don't" there would be more people
opting out of causing their infant sons
needless pain, but there is still the lazy
factor to consider.
Why teach your son how to clean himself
when you can just have it peeled off? No
fuss (for you) no muss (for you). You
chose to breed just because you want a
little DNA replica, why should you care if
your permanent choices over his body
affect him, right? If people breed
knowing they'll pass on genetic diseases
and deficiencies then why should they be
expected to be considerate enough to care
whether their own sons choose what happens
to their genitals?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 10:03am
You don't think people should be able to
express a religious belief? It's an
important aspect of being Jewish to my
knowledge. You might not agree, but it's
still their choice. I thought you were
pro-choice? Or is that only in the case of
a woman being able to abort?
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 434 Location: ,
Thanks: 98
Thanked:55
Posted: 03-19-08 10:39am
It's not very pro-choice to permanently
alter someone else's genitals against
their will, is it?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-19-08 14:15pm
Darkmoon
wrote:
It's not very pro-choice to
permanently alter someone else's genitals
against their will, is
it?
It's not very pro-choice to permanently
cease the life of a fetus and prevent the
existence of a person either. But that's
the label. I believe in most cases the
parents have the right to make the choice
for their child, which is one of the other
reasons I'm pro-choice. The fetus is still
their child, but for its own good,
sometimes abortion is the right answer.
Just like euthanizing a sick pet.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 434 Location: ,
Thanks: 98
Thanked:55
Posted: 03-21-08 10:20am
Eiri
wrote:
Darkmoon
wrote:
It's not very pro-choice to
permanently alter someone else's genitals
against their will, is
it?
It's not very pro-choice to permanently
cease the life of a fetus and prevent the
existence of a person either. But that's
the label. I believe in most cases the
parents have the right to make the choice
for their child, which is one of the other
reasons I'm pro-choice. The fetus is still
their child, but for its own good,
sometimes abortion is the right answer.
Just like euthanizing a sick
pet.
It's very prochoice to permanently cease
the life of a fetus, as long as it resides
within the body of someone. If women only
had to lay eggs painlessly and risk-free
to reproduce then abortion wouldn't even
be an issue for me. Your red herring is
weak.
People are free to believe as they wish
and practice whatever religion they like,
but not at the expense of others. If you
support non-consensual male circumcision
for religious/tradition purposes then you
must also support non-consensual female
genital mutilation and rape. You may not
personally consider cutting part of the
male penis off without his consent to be a
big deal because you're used to it and
have grown up in a culture that passes it
off as a traditional right of the parents.
In other parts of the world the same
holds true for practices that harm women
(such as the aforementioned female
"circumcision" that destroys their ability
to receive any pleasure from coupling, as
well as condoning the rape and beating of
women). By all means, practice your
religion...but do it on YOUR OWN body.
Everyone, male and female, deserves the
right to make their own decisions
regarding their bodies. You only get one
body in life and it's a human violation in
the worst way for others to mutilate it
(any unnecessary and forceful alteration,
especially if it causes pain, is
mutilation), use it against your will or
force you to use it in a way you don't
consent to, regardless of who is doing the
forcing and what excuses they make.
Breast cancer is a deadly and common risk
for all females. Should parents have
their daughters' breasts removed once they
develop "for their own good"? Should
people be allowed to drag their kids into
the hospital to have their appendix
removed because it "might" cause problems
somewhere down the line?
Trying to pass off the surgical alteration
of an unwilling party's body as something
being done "for their own good" when there
is no present reason for doing it is a big
crock. If you think it's so acceptable
then I guess you wouldn't have any
objections if society decided that it
would be for your own good to have your
clit forcibly removed, without anesthetic.
|
tdr
Supporter
Joined: 05 Oct 2006 Posts: 1535 Location: Somewhere else...not here., PA USA
Thanks: 6
Thanked:7
Posted: 03-21-08 11:23am
I wasn't raised religiously; my mother is
Roman Catholic and my father is Jewish,
and they couldn't agree on how to raise my
brother and me. If/when I marry, I'll
leave religion up to my partner. If they
practice a specific religion, then I will
have no problem allowing my children to be
raised with those beliefs, if my partner
is willing to do so. That being said, if
my partner were Jewish and we were to have
a son, I would have no problem
circumcizing him as part of the religious
beliefs of my partner and the eventual
upbringing of our child.
I wouldn't circumcize for the hell of it,
so to speak. If my partner were, let's
say, Roman Catholic, then our son would
probably not be circumcized.
Does anyone know if a tight foreskin can
be genetic? Because if my partner had
suffered from this and had to go through a
later circumcizion (ie as anything later
than 1yr of age) I think it would make
sense to circumcize our male child as a
sort of preventative measure.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-21-08 11:29am
It would make sense if it was genetic,
since it is a physical feature. However,
I'd ask a doctor as well.
|
Paul86
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Posts: 19
Posted: 03-23-08 16:25pm
It seems to me that circumcision is based
on a delusion. Correct the delusion and
there's absolutely no point in castrating
ones dick... unless of course, it's a
fashion statement... or appealing in
another sense - maybe self mutilation
turns you on.
Go pro-choice!
Equating a flap of skin to a fetus
(~non-human? pre-human? ...does it matter
how we look at it?).
|
alziluth
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 22 Mar 2008 Posts: 10
Posted: 03-23-08 22:40pm
Check this out:
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is
almost always successful in small boys is
circumcision..." The operation should be
performed by a surgeon without
administering an anesthetic, as the pain
attending the operation will have a
salutary effect upon the mind, especially
if it be connected with the idea of
punishment..." John Harvey Kellog, M.D.,
Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects,
Plain Facts for Old and Young,
Burlington,Iowa; F. Segner & Co.,
1888.
|
Galaxy
Supporter
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 Posts: 514 Location: U.K,
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-24-08 06:12am
Here in the UK it is illegal to dock a
dog's tail on the grounds that it is
cruel, it diminishes the integrity of the
dog's essential 'dogginess' and serves no
purpose other than to appeal to the vanity
of the owner.
In the UK we are known as a dog-loving
society and many people seem to treat
their pets better than their children.
However, almost no one in this country
circumcises a child other than for
religious reasons. I think you would be
struggling to find a doctor who would do
it to satisfy the whim of a parent.
As I understand it, circumcision became
popular in the US not only for 'hygienic'
reasons (so no one has a bath-tub in the
US?) but because some 19th century
bible-bashers decided that masturbation
was to be discouraged.
I'm sorry if I seem a little
over-enthusiastic in my condemnation but I
feel very strongly in the integrity of the
child and that we as caring custodians of
the future generations should not impose
such cruel disfigurement on another human
being and then attempt to justify it by
making spurious claims about the need for
a boy to look like his father!
