(October 7, 2016 at 11:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My mother in law is a doctor. I talked to her about it and asked for her opinion when I found out my baby was a boy. I know everyone has a different opinion about this, but based on her own experiences of what she's seen and dealt with, she's very much in favor of circumcision.

According to her, when a man is young and sexually active, a circumcised penis stays cleaner and thus reduces the chances of spreading STD's or giving a woman UTI's. When they are older and can't clean themselves as well (or at all), having an uncircumcised penis increases their own chances of infections. She says she's had to have several of her elderly patients circumcised because of this. And that while it's a quick and simple procedure when it's done on a baby, when it's done on a grown and mature penis, it is a lot more severe.

My take is that there are pros and cons to both sides. When a parent is faced with the decision to either cut or not cut their baby boy, they must weigh the benefits of both options and do what they think is best for their son.

...That's really all there is to it. All this hate and anger being thrown to parents who choose differently from what you would have chosen, and calling them bad parents or horrible people, is very uncalled for imho.

Bolded is mine.

This depends on when she first experienced dirty peens. We have advanced in technology, we have advanced in cleanliness, in fact too much, so much so it is becoming an obsession.
So, according to your mother in law. She may have seen a few, but not a great deal. This would be the ideal eyewitness fallacy. Unless you have seen it for yourself then it has to be treated as hearsay, regardless of what job she does. In what society do hospitals/hospices/carehomes have the right to to do this. The elderly have done nothing to warrant such a butchering, when most, if not all don't have their faculties thus, immediate family should have been spoken to. If this wasn't done, then this surely is an illegal practice. If she couldn't handle the idea of picking up a penis with gloves on, then she is in the wrong job. Circumcising the elderly is not showing compassion.

So, with that being said, it is all down to hearsay and opinion, and you have summarised it as:

Uncut penis: Dirty and is prone to giving STDs or UTIs.
Cut penis: Very clean, not prone to STDs or UTIs.

I am condemning people who subject their kids to mutilation. I can't help it. It's my opinion that it's wrong and child abuse and I'll call it like it is.

But then again, I don't necessarily agree with abortion either, so that analogy doesn't work very well on me.

That doesn't mean I don't like CL anymore or anything like that. I just think she's wrong on this issue, that's all. I won't demonize her because of it, she is a very nice person and I don't believe she has a malicious bone in her body. The practice in itself is evil, however. So context matters. Good people can do bad things because of a lot of reasons. Life is complicated that way.

(October 7, 2016 at 5:04 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(October 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure it doesn't.

I mean, it's not like catholics saw masturbation as filthy- just as imam who-gives-a-fuck sees a clit as filthy, it's not like they believe in a magic book that tells them to snip their sons.  Who do you think the nutballs that got americans to do this were appealing to?  Why did it catch on?  Medical studies about non-existent health benefits, you reckon....?



That circumcision as we practice it finds both it's genesis and it's support in the abrahamic religious traditions is flatly inarguable, Lady.  Just another thing we have jesus to thank for.  By we, ofc, I don't mean me.....I'm intact.  I mean all the poor schmucks whose mothers cut their sons for christ without realizing it.

Also funny that the believers of a god that made us perfect, by catholic standards, guiding evolution and giving free will,  would accept that we made decisions for them.

This is where they start to contradict themselves. They believe a god, their holy father son and ghost gave free will, yet they have learned none from those teachings and make decisions for others. How ironic can it get?

I have a 2 month baby daughter. This obviously wont apply to her and anyone that will try to pierce, tattoo, corcuncuse or what the fuck they think of in name of vanity, culture religion, will have to walk over my warm dead body.

There is no fucking point in comparing with vaccines. Those are fucking proved to help in health, nothing to do with aestethics, personal tastes. I might become a bad dad, but she will have time to have all the piercings, tatoos, baptisms and whatnot by her own volition. That is what its meant to be.

/thread.  

The issue of the foreskin is "just a few centimeters of skin" -constant devaluation.  Clits can't even be spoken of, too important, sacred.  Not at all just a few centimeters of skin.

From where my foreskin sits, standards are not bieng rigorously applied, one sex is getting the shaft pretty damn hard, lol.

(October 7, 2016 at 5:06 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I am condemning people who subject their kids to mutilation. I can't help it. It's my opinion that it's wrong and child abuse and I'll call it like it is.

But then again, I don't necessarily agree with abortion either, so that analogy doesn't work very well on me.

That doesn't mean I don't like CL anymore or anything like that. I just think she's wrong on this issue, that's all. I won't demonize her because of it, she is a very nice person and I don't believe she has a malicious bone in her body. The practice in itself is evil, however. So context matters. Good people can do bad things because of a lot of reasons. Life is complicated that way.

I have nothing against CL either. However, lopping a piece of skin off and then celebrating like they have won the superbowl with a barbecue and a beer in each hand, just sucks for the child, and all that because of some fallacy about being cut and being hygienic as opposed to being "uncut", and being dirty as fuck. You have to read in between the lines EP. If what her MIL stated is true, that uncut men are dirty, then that is the vibe I got when I read one of her first posts. If you are comparing one thing to another, even without saying mentioning the other object, the actual implication is there and that is what Rythym is talking about.

(October 7, 2016 at 5:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The issue of the foreskin is "just a few centimeters of skin" -constant devaluation.  Clits can't even be spoken of, too important, sacred.  Not at all just a few centimeters of skin.

When it comes down to religious tradition, what other stance did you think the religious people would take about FGM? Be honest Amigo....

On a personal note to all the idiots that think I am cunt fucking unclean, for not be damned cut, i keep my cock cleaner than my tonghe, shit.

So, FGM is illegal in the UK and is classed as "Child abuse", yet they are ok for boys to be circumcised....

http://www.dofeve.org/living-with-fgm.html

Quote:FGM is against the law in the UK and is recognised as a form of child abuse.

Furthermore, I think the thread title should be changed to "Male and female genital mutilation", to call it what they really are.

It is a bit like an Islamic country where it is ok for men to drive and go wherever they please on holiday. However, women cannot drive alone or with anyone, and as for leaving the country alone, this is an impossibility. It seems we have already adopted the Islamic way of thinking.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/news...qus_thread

Quote:his new study demonstrates what we have suspected for decades, that circumcision’s result — if not its intent — is reduced sexual pleasure for men. As such, it is a violation of a male’s right to bodily integrity. In large part, female circumcision does the same; even the mildest forms remove the most sensitive portions of the female genitalia. Females in the USA and many other countries are protected by law from all forms of genital cutting.

The mistaken belief behind circumcision is that it is cleaner, healthier, protects against disease, and will make males more tractable in a society.

Is there really anymore to add to the above?

That's the strange thing about it, baby boys are not receiving the legal protection that baby girls do on these, the most vulnerable days of their entire lives...their first days.  

Doesn't exactly set a good tone for what's to come.

(lol, the international coalition for genetial integrity...hehehe....hehehehehehehehehehehehehe, keeping all the dicks together)