Quote :

"holy shit some retardation in this thread. MALE CIRCUMCISION = aesthetics, convenience, hygene. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION = disabling mutilation, subjugation, patriarchal ownership."

12/9/2008 10:33:50 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "holy shit some retardation in this thread. MALE CIRCUMCISION = aesthetics, convenience, hygene. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION = disabling mutilation, subjugation, patriarchal ownership." "

12/9/2008 10:53:55 AM

Quote :

"So all medical procedures will be put on hold till your child is 18?"

Cosmetic surgery? Yes.

12/9/2008 11:23:56 AM

First of all - its not Cosmetic surgery.

Second - are you saying if your child was born with a deformed ear and it could be fixed at birth - you would wait till siad child was 18?

12/9/2008 11:25:28 AM

Quote :

"MALE CIRCUMCISION = decreased sensitivity, aesthetics, convenience, hygeine. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION = disabling mutilation, subjugation, patriarchal ownership."

12/9/2008 11:27:30 AM

From even the most bias stories - this "decreased sensitivity`is slight. Just enough to make us cut guys last longer in bed.

12/9/2008 11:30:12 AM

Quote :

"First of all - its not Cosmetic surgery. Second - are you saying if your child was born with a deformed ear and it could be fixed at birth - you would wait till siad child was 18?"

What is it if it's not cosmetic surgery? Is your child going to be fucking hookers in a 3rd world cesspool without a rubber?

12/9/2008 11:36:17 AM

Quote :

"Second - are you saying if your child was born with a deformed ear and it could be fixed at birth - you would wait till siad child was 18?"

it's more like saying if your child was born with a normal ear, would you perform plastic surgery on that ear to fit the culture of the day? and let's just throw you a bone and say that something to do with this surgery made wax less likely to collect.

12/9/2008 11:45:04 AM

Quote :

"decreased sensitivity"

thats such a non-issue. like i need any more sensitivity down there.

my circumcised cock is already sensitive enough. if it were any more sensitive, i'd about jizz my pants every time the wind blows.

12/9/2008 11:45:10 AM

yeah i dont buy the sensitivity thing either. if anything, its a good pro-circumcision argument.

12/9/2008 11:55:40 AM

Why to advoid my direct question. Answer it please.

Quote :

"What is it if it's not cosmetic surgery?"

Did you not read the pages of health reasons, the fact it eliminates a type of cancer? No way you are that dumb, must be doing a stick of some sort.

12/9/2008 12:04:10 PM

Cutting off any part of your body is going to reduce the chances of cancer, because there are less places to get it.

There's a difference between fixing a fucked up body part that may cause the child social problems in school, and altering a normal body part because God wants you to.

12/9/2008 12:10:37 PM

Again - you advoided a direct question.

Quote :

"my circumcised cock is already sensitive enough. if it were any more sensitive, i'd about jizz my pants every time the wind blows."

That must be the reason you see so few uncuts in porno.

12/9/2008 12:48:08 PM

Quote :

"if it were any more sensitive, i'd about jizz my pants every time the wind blows."

Speaking of, did any of you guys see the "Jizz in my pants" digital short on SNL this past wknd. If not check out hulu.com, its fucking hilarious

12/9/2008 12:48:50 PM

Quote :

"That must be the reason you see so few uncuts in porno."

no - it's because people in America generally find uncircumcised weird looking

12/9/2008 12:50:22 PM

No regrets about having a clipped one, and got both the boys cut too when they were born. Not a big deal, but I'm not a hippie who didn't get the basic vaccines and shit for my children because I was scared they would have TEH AUTISM! and was more concerned about the diseases that they prevent.

And if uncut ones are more sensitive, I'd be re-enacting the American Pie scene a lot!

[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2008 1:59:03 PM

FYI: "slightly reduced risk" != "prevent"

12/9/2008 2:45:41 PM

actually, i haven't seen anyone that was against circumcision in either thread say that they were against childhood immunizations. you guys keep on with that and the fairtrade coffee schtick though.

12/9/2008 5:05:27 PM

that reminds me.

my Gun-Toting, Fair-Trade Coffee-Buying, Circumcised Liberals for Jesus support group meets tonight.




[Edited on December 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2008 8:16:20 PM

12/9/2008 8:48:04 PM

It reduces the rates for some things. That doesn't mean you should alter it. Reduction of risks =/= prevention. Very little of what a foreskin puts you "at risk" for is an issue in the first world anyway.

Not down with wackin' my kid's dick. Just answering the thread's questions. I think it's unethical, medically unimportant, and I wouldn't circumcise my child.

12/9/2008 9:32:24 PM

You still didn't answer my direct question.

12/9/2008 10:14:52 PM

I agree with bottombaby. Note that one common form of female genital mutilation, Sunna circumcision, roughly matches male circumcision. Proponents use similar justifications for both practices.

The idea of somebody hacking off my foreskin makes me want to double over. I'm glad my parents were hippies.

12/9/2008 10:17:48 PM

I was circumcised. Unless the mother has serious objections, any sons I have will be circumcised. It seems like something that has very minimal drawbacks and slightly less minimal benefits, including widespread social acceptability and hygiene.

12/9/2008 11:19:11 PM

the day i meet a chick who is into unclipped wangs is the only day i will consider not having any future sons circumcised

12/9/2008 11:22:36 PM

^^ Yes, hygiene. Rather than wash this part of my body, I think I'll just cut it off. Uh, okay?

I'll give you social acceptability, though, at least in the current United States. Not so in much of the rest of the world.

12/10/2008 12:14:47 AM

It's not just an issue of washing the damn thing. As several people here have pointed out, there are disease considerations. But even the way you put it isn't that ridiculous. If there was a simple, quick, outpatient surgery that could remove other useless things that get funky, I'd probably be in favor of that, too. As it happens, armpits are a necessary function of having arms that attach to the body, and walking on feet is much easier than walking on leg stumps. But the foreskin? I can piss, fuck, and fap (and how!) just fine without it.

Quote :

"I'll give you social acceptability, though, at least in the current United States."

Raise your hand if you live in the current United States, as opposed to another country or the past/future. There's regions of the world where pants are optional, too, but (and I swear to God my head will explode if you start doing this) I don't see you saying we should all drop trou for our next job interviews.

12/10/2008 12:31:41 AM

how did i know that GV would be an outspoken critic of circumcision.

12/10/2008 12:31:44 AM

of course you shouldnt drop trou, that might make the status of your weiner or its size or whatever the object of employment discrimination

12/10/2008 12:36:22 AM

Quote :

"If there was a simple, quick, outpatient surgery that could remove other useless things that get funky, I'd probably be in favor of that, too."

I do not consider my foreskin useless. That aside, I can't imagine wanting chop off any feeling part for the sake of cleanliness. What would be a good example? The earlobe, maybe? Can get funky if not washed, doesn't do much.

Remember, we don't have amazing nanotechology just yet. Doctors still use pretty gruesome instruments. This makes cringe at all cosmetic surgery. I think people should be free to modify their bodies as they desire, but that shit looks painful.

The problem with circumcision, obviously, is that the infant doesn't get any say in the process.

Quote :

"Raise your hand if you live in the current United States, as opposed to another country or the past/future."

I feel suddenly compelled to inject transhumanism into the discussion. (I used up all my willpower restrain myself the first time.) Your sons, Grumpster, will almost certainly have the opportunity to flawlessly reclaim their foreskins through advanced medical technology. In way, this undercuts a key argument against the practice. They may also be able to casually change sex or even become furries. Exponential change can be a double-edged sword.

12/10/2008 12:53:21 AM

Quote :

"What would be a good example? The earlobe, maybe? Can get funky if not washed, doesn't do much. "

The earlobe isn't located at a waste disposal orifice or a sweat factory. It's obnoxious enough that you've managed to jump down the futurism well IN A THREAD ABOUT WIENERS, you don't need to go out of your way to be more idiotic by bringing up an apples-and-oranges comparison.

Quote :

"I feel suddenly compelled to inject transhumanism into the discussion."

WELL THERE'S A FUCKING SURPRISE!!!

Quote :

"how did i know that GV would be an outspoken critic of circumcision."

Because, as he just demonstrated, he's as predictable as the tides.

Cue, "In the future tides will be rendered obsolete by transoceanism and nanotechnology"

12/10/2008 1:03:47 AM

aha

12/10/2008 2:30:28 AM

Quote :

"The earlobe isn't located at a waste disposal orifice or a sweat factory."

That doesn't prevent ears from getting funky. They're wax factories, among other things. Personally, I find my ears more trouble to clean than my penis. Should I consider amputation?

Quote :

"WELL THERE'S A FUCKING SURPRISE!!!"

I did it for you, Grumpster.

Quote :

"Cue, "In the future tides will be rendered obsolete by transoceanism and nanotechnology""

How so? While theoretically possible, messing with the Moon or re-engineering the ocean would be monumental undertakings. The amount of mass involved boggles the mind.

12/10/2008 10:28:43 AM

Quote :

"Second - are you saying if your child was born with a deformed ear and it could be fixed at birth - you would wait till siad child was 18?"

No I probably wouldn't wait if it could be corrected in a way that's not dangerous -- I realize you found a loophole in my original statement.

I think there's a difference between cosmetic procedures that fixes a deformity (especially if that deformity will cause the kid serious grief while growing up) and cosmetic procedures that alter a normal body part.

12/10/2008 11:38:49 AM

^^ i see you're unable to perceive when people are making fun of you.

12/10/2008 11:48:56 AM

He's counting on the fact that someday nanobots will be able to supply him with social skills.

12/10/2008 12:48:38 PM

Quote :

"I think there's a difference between cosmetic procedures that fixes a deformity (especially if that deformity will cause the kid serious grief while growing up) and cosmetic procedures that alter a normal body part."

It is not a cosmetic surgery.

Holy fuck VG, the earlobe? Really? That is the best ya got?

Nevertheless, one possible function of the foreskin in primitive humans may have been to protect the head of the penis from long grass, shrubbery, etc when humans wore no clothes, where, evolutionarily, our basic physiology and psychology are little different than our savannah-wandering or cave-dwelling ancestors tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also, the moist tip of the uncircumcised penis would facilitate quick penetration of a female, where lengthy foreplay and intercourse would be a survival disadvantage, since the risk to the copulators from predators and human enemies would be greater the longer they were engaged in sex.

12/10/2008 1:05:19 PM

You could argue that there are health benefits to circumcision but that's mostly applicable to 3rd world hellholes and not to the 1st world. Sure, if my son decides to fuck a thousand Thai hookers without a rubber then having no foreskin would mean he'd have a lower chance of contracting AIDS. I don't see this as a reason for cutting it off without his consent.

If it's such a huge health benefit then he could opt to do it at 18 if he so desires. It's not like, living in America, there'll be a good reason for him not to have a foreskin before age 18 anyway.

12/10/2008 1:17:10 PM

Quote :

"They're wax factories, among other things. "

Earwax serves a purpose. Last time I checked, smegma doesn't. The point was that earlobes do not get dirty faster than the majority of the body. Indeed, unless you are sticking your entire head into some very dirty places, it probably takes longer to get funky. More importantly, the presence of earlobes does not increase the risk of disease contraction to such an extent that doctors feel the need to mention it.

Quote :

"I think there's a difference between cosmetic procedures that fixes a deformity (especially if that deformity will cause the kid serious grief while growing up) and cosmetic procedures that alter a normal body part."

Human umbilical cords are normal parts of the body that could be left to their own devices but are, instead, cut and tied off in a very particular manner at the point of birth. Not taking part in this procedure has very minimal effects, including the fact that the child will have a belly button that looks odd and different from his friends and family. Two, it's probably cleaner to go ahead and cut the thing and get it tied off so it's not dangling all willy-nilly.

Quote :

"It's not like, living in America, there'll be a good reason for him not to have a foreskin before age 18 anyway."

Odds are he's going to lose his virginity before he turns 18 -- or try to, anyway. If some of the commentary in this thread and from outside it is to be believed, he may have a harder go of it uncircumcised.

You can try to minimize the role of social acceptability all you want, but ignoring it has consequences, namely your kid being different for the first 18 years of his life until he finally gets old enough to make the decision himself. By then it will:

1) Cost him money
2) Take up time that he could actually be using to do other things
3) Hurt in such a way that he will remember it hurting

---

Since it isn't getting discussed much, now I'm really curious as to what the anti-infant-circumcision crowd has to say about the millions of Jews for whom it is a direct requirement by God.

12/10/2008 2:18:49 PM

We're mostly talking about parental preference here -- it's my preference not to circumcise my child for the reasons stated above. I don't think the "he won't remember" argument holds any water for the pain. There are many cases where people won't remember pain but we consider it immoral to cause it (before death, for instance).

I'm not sure how my aversion to circumcision lines up with umbilical cord severance -- is it even the case that there are nerve endings in the cord that the infant could feel? Is the dangling cord alive in any respect, or is severing it analogous to cutting hair? Just curious.

Quote :

"Since it isn't getting discussed much, now I'm really curious as to what the anti-infant-circumcision crowd has to say about the millions of Jews for whom it is a direct requirement by God."

Slaughter of the Canaanites was also a direct requirement given by God. This opens up a can of worms.

12/10/2008 4:16:38 PM

Quote :

"He's counting on the fact that someday nanobots will be able to supply him with social skills."

Nah. Could happen, but I'm not counting on it. I do fine socially with my kind of people. Geeks and anarchists, for example.

Quote :

"It is not a cosmetic surgery."

So what kind of surgery is it? Cultural?

Quote :

"Holy fuck VG, the earlobe? Really? That is the best ya got?"

It's not the best example, but strikes me as strange that only the foreskin should be subject to this policy of hacking body parts that can get funky. If nothing else, the female equivalent should equally acceptable.

Quote :

"Last time I checked, smegma doesn't."

Are you serious? I don't believe you've actually checked. A simple internet search should clear up this confusion.

Quote :

"You can try to minimize the role of social acceptability all you want, but ignoring it has consequences, namely your kid being different for the first 18 years of his life until he finally gets old enough to make the decision himself."

So, if you decided to move permanently to the UK for some reason, would you then not want your sons to be circumcised?

12/10/2008 4:33:01 PM

I'm afraid I made the error of assuming that the anti-circumcision crowd wanted to outlaw a practice that it considers, and I quote:

"unnecessary"
"without consent"
"painful"
"gruesome"
"mutilation"
"unethical

But apparently, having talked with Str8Foolish, he's completely down with keeping it legal, despite agreeing with those sentiments. I find this hard to understand, because generally we oppose other gruesome, painful mutilations that are inflicted on people without consent or medical necessity. But OK, since apparently there's not a move to get rid of it, forget the Jews comment, because the discussion I wanted it to lead us to is moot.

Quote :

"Are you serious? I don't believe you've actually checked."

I apologize; there was an error here on my part. I was relying on sex ed courses, which of course is always a mistake. While the narrowly-defined smegma does indeed serve a purpose, the amalgam of substances that tend to collect in that environment, broadly speaking, does not.

Quote :

"So, if you decided to move permanently to the UK for some reason, would you then not want your sons to be circumcised?"

If I already had the sons, then they'd already be in such a different environment that I don't think a little less/extra dick skin would have much effect.

If the sons were born while I was there, it would probably influence my decision making process. I can't say for sure, but the question itself puts me in an unrealistic situation, as I very seriously intend to ensure that my children are raised primarily in the United States for a variety of reasons that share similar roots to my position on the social acceptability of circumcision.

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM. Reason : ]

12/10/2008 4:38:20 PM

It's my opinion on the matter but I can see the other viewpoint -- thus I don't really think it should be legislated against. It's something I'd like to spare my child, though. What's hard about that to understand?

Fact of the matter is, the kid won't remember it either way. The only upshot is that he's stuck with a configuration you decide for him -- I just think going the natural route in this case is a better decision.

12/10/2008 4:39:59 PM

Quote :

"It's something I'd like to spare my child, though. What's hard about that to understand?"

Absolutely nothing. Do whatever you want with your kids' dicks. Well, not whatever you want, but you get the idea.

The reason this debate always gets so heated isn't that one side actually wants the other to change, it's because a disparity of terms quickly arises that makes both sides get more defensive about it than the issue warrants.

One side is full of dick-chopping barbarians who go around mutilating genitals for the sheer fun of it, and the other side is so laden with spoiled dick-cheese that the smell from their bizarrely-shaped genitals is repellent from across the room.

It's pretty much inevitable when any discussion of the subject is going to have to involve terms like "mutilation" and "unhygienic"

12/10/2008 4:49:31 PM

I'd rather wash a dick than chop it. Just my preference.

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : QUOTE ME OUT OF CONTEXT FOREVER AND EVER]

12/10/2008 4:53:56 PM

And we'd rather be chop-happy dick-cutters than dick-cheese dairy farmers.

12/10/2008 5:08:10 PM

Quote :

"But OK, since apparently there's not a move to get rid of it, forget the Jews comment, because the discussion I wanted it to lead us to is moot."

Denmark may ban the practice.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/12/02/male-circumcision-could-be-outlawed-in-denmark/

12/10/2008 5:09:44 PM

Message Boards >> The Soap Box >> Dong Chat

12/10/2008 5:10:22 PM

Quote :

"protect the penis from shrubbery"

aha

TWW never fails to supply me with new and exciting combinations of otherwise ordinary words.

12/10/2008 6:24:42 PM

Smegma does have a purpose. Read up on it.

Fewer newborns are being circumcised every year. In some areas of the US, the number of intact males in elementary schools is equal to or greater than the number of circumcised males.

There is a world-wide movement to preserve the integrity of male and female genitalia alike. Circumcision denies a person the right to make an informed choice about his or her body.

12/10/2008 7:22:33 PM