(November 27, 2013 at 10:56 am)Psykhronic Wrote:

(November 27, 2013 at 10:53 am)Brian37 Wrote: ONCE AGAIN, medical reasons I am fine with. Superstitious reasons are always fucking bullshit.

If there is a medical reason that cannot be resolved in any other manner than removing the foreskin - go for it, is what I say. That's essentially the only time.

Agreed, but watch as some Jews call us anti Semites for pointing out the truth that they have no case.

A story or several about that floated around here, Jacob. It's... sick as fuck dear jesus.

And yeah, there will be some jews who will call us anti-semites, brian, but fuck em

"The largely unknown practice, which has been used during the Jewish circumcision ritual for thousands of years, came to public attention last week when New York City health officials said that a Hasidic rabbi and mohel from Monsey was suspected of transmitting the herpes virus to three New York City infants he had circumcised. One of the infants died in October.Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, a prominent Hasidic mohel, suctions blood orally during the circumcision ritual, known as a bris, in order to remove impurities. He is suspected of passing the oral herpes virus, which generally produces cold sores but can be passed to another person's genital area."

Nice init. Seems legit...

---

(November 27, 2013 at 11:04 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: And yeah, there will be some jews who will call us anti-semites, brian, but fuck em

I'm not antisemite. I am anti grown men putting their mouth over a new born baby's penis and sucking blood out of it. Typically judgemental Christian.

The human mouth is such a breeding ground for bacteria, it's never a good idea to put your mouth on an open wound. The old-timey idea of sucking poison out of a snake bite is now considered more harmful than good, mainly because if a snake bites you the poison is going to go deep into your tissues and enter the bloodstream, and it's unlikely you'll be able to suck it out in the first place. Then adding all the bacteria from your mouth to an open wound just means it will get infected.

But anyone with cold sores which are caused by the herpes virus should keep their mouth away from another person's open wound, especially an infant which has an underdeveloped immune system.

I actually know a guy who got circumcised in his early 20s due to a bad tear in the foreskin (I'm not sure how this happened). Apparently he did not have a change in sexual feeling.

Sample size of one is irrelevant, but it's an interesting story.

Would any of the men here who are glad they are circumcised be willing to undergo the procedure now, if you were uncut?

(November 27, 2013 at 11:17 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote: The human mouth is such a breeding ground for bacteria, it's never a good idea to put your mouth on an open wound. The old-timey idea of sucking poison out of a snake bite is now considered more harmful than good, mainly because if a snake bites you the poison is going to go deep into your tissues and enter the bloodstream, and it's unlikely you'll be able to suck it out in the first place. Then adding all the bacteria from your mouth to an open wound just means it will get infected.

But anyone with cold sores which are caused by the herpes virus should keep their mouth away from another person's open wound, especially an infant which has an underdeveloped immune system.

And also there is the small matter of GROWN MEN SUCKING BABIES PENISES!!!!

I mean c'on! This is the 21st century for crying out loud! If I rocked up at the hospital and said "hi, I'm a Satanist and it's in our religion that when she's had her mastectomy I drink her blood direct from the wound" what would my chances be?! I suspect the Dr's would throw me out faster than last night's bedpans!

But it's OK for some random guy to do this to babies?!

Fuck a doodle do, what's wrong with these people?!

(November 27, 2013 at 1:28 am)Chad32 Wrote: There's nothing they do to the infants that can't be done later in life.

False. As an infant, there is no painful memory retained into adulthood whereas the precise opposite is true if the procedure is performed on an adult.

---

(November 27, 2013 at 4:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: It's a decision the child should make when they come of age, yes.

The same can be stated for infant ear piercing, that it is technically bodily mutilation and should be the child's decision when s/he is old enough, yet most logical people do not make a big fuss about it when a parent pierces an infant's ears.

---

(November 27, 2013 at 10:51 am)Brian37 Wrote: Really? So without a medical reason to do such, you think it is ok to put a baby in pain because of an ancient myth?

Irrelevant. An aesthetically pleasing penis, retaining no memory of the pain associated with the procedure, and not having to worry about boys who will behave like boys by not concerning themselves overly much with cleanliness are perfectly legitimate reasons for circumcision to be performed on infants.

Aesthetically pleasing penis?!

Seriously?

I'm not convinced that "saves them having to worry about cleanliness" is a good enough reason to allow parents to chop bits off their children.

---

Any of the female members (sorry) want to comment on the relative aesthetic pleasure they derive from circumcised / uncircumcised todgers?

I mean in fairness, I couldn't honestly describe mine as Aesthetically pleasing.

(November 27, 2013 at 11:18 am)Zazzy Wrote: Would any of the men here who are glad they are circumcised be willing to undergo the procedure now, if you were uncut?

I cannot know for certain had I not been circumcised if I would still have the same disgust for the uncut penis as I currently do. I will not have sexual encounters with men who are uncut for the simple reason that the uncut penis is very unappealing to me.

If I preferred the aesthetics of the cut penis even though I was uncut, I would most likely have the procedure performed on me.

(November 27, 2013 at 11:58 am)Kitanetos Wrote:

(November 27, 2013 at 11:18 am)Zazzy Wrote: Would any of the men here who are glad they are circumcised be willing to undergo the procedure now, if you were uncut?

I cannot know for certain had I not been circumcised if I would still have the same disgust for the uncut penis as I currently do. I will not have sexual encounters with men who are uncut for the simple reason that the uncut penis is very unappealing to me.

If I preferred the aesthetics of the cut penis even though I was uncut, I would most likely have the procedure performed on me.

Well bugger me.
Actually, don't. I have an unappealing uncut penis.

I'm genuinely surprised!

---

Also now suffering from penile aesthetic anxiety.