08-09-2004 00:08									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher The vast majority of people do not need to be circumcised as an adult. In fact, it's extremely rare to do that now, there are alternate treatments that don't even involve cutting -- just creams (I speak from personal experience -- don't ask). 10 years ago they'd require circumcision, now you just apply cream for a month and voila...no slicing and dicing.

My friend got circumsized as an adult cause hes a Jew. He want as an infant, cause of the repressive circumstances in the Soviet Union, were he grew up.

	08-09-2004 00:09									#32
	Tired of ads?

I'm really glad no-one chopped my foreskin off, ****ing without one must be more complicated.

	08-09-2004 00:10									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf I hear France is banning circumcised penises in schools

Only public display of them will be banned

	08-09-2004 00:11									#34
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark My friend got circumsized as an adult cause hes a Jew. He want as an infant, cause of the repressive circumstances in the Soviet Union, were he grew up.

As I said, circumcision should only be used as a punishment for being religious.

	08-09-2004 00:11									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I dont' think you should cut your kid penis up, just because.. it supposedly lowers the chance of STD, because how about just using a condom anyway, it's no deterrent, and about hygiene, well I wash up my penis every day and it's clean. So if you're a lazy bastard, then yeah, but since you are not, then it doesn't matter.

It also protects your penis some.

There is an extra feeling to it, so you feel more. Now the men with cut penis say they can last longer, so what do I care, I last long too, 10 minuets if I have to. AND I feel more. How's them apples?

I don't need lube to masturbate, it's cheaper and better.

Better looking, says who? Couple of stuck up girls who listen to britney spears? Hey, I have never had complaints either. Furthermore, I can always find a group of girls to say the exact opposite. SO it's not a fact.

Basically, I feel people should be able to decide for themselves. If they want to have it cut, they should be able, but it should also be THEIR decision.

	08-09-2004 00:11									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Yes, when I think it's morally wrong. Chopping a part of a child off is wrong, IMHO, since that child may not share the view that it is better. I believe it is a person's choice, not their parents.

The question here is whether the state has a right to intervene "on the childs behalf" In my case that would have ended up being to my personal detriment, and i cant help but think that theres something wrong with a moral calculus that is flagrantly wrong in the my own case.

	08-09-2004 00:12									#37
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Sue his parents? Like I said, whichever way you go you eliminate an option.

Actually it doesn't. If you chop it off, it can't grow back. if you don't chop it off, it can be done later, if that person wants it.

	08-09-2004 00:12									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think this is something the kid should decide.

	08-09-2004 00:12									#39
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Circumcision is a useless activity with higher risks than potential benefits. And they look worse after. They only look 'better' to people because that's what they're used to seeing. The only difference in an erect penis, is the circumcised penis has an ugly ring-scar, while the uncircumcised doesn't (and the circumcised guy feels less and has more friction).

Ummm, ring scar? I had mine done as an infant so I cant speak for your BF but I have no ring scar.

I am prepared to concede that being circumsized means you require more "care" in anal sex, though apparently ripped foreskins are as painful as they are amusing to me, in "normal" sex all is good.

quote: Circumcision is a useless activity with higher risks than potential benefits

Done as an infant, remind me of the risks.

	08-09-2004 00:14									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I, personally, have never encountered such an individual, in my personal life or through knowing people at the three (two liberal, one reform, not in that order) synagogues that my family have been members of. On the contrary, assuming the mother consented I would want my son circumsized. No matter those who had the op done later, every guy I've known that had it done as an infant was proud of the fact. As for unconsenting kids, that'll only work with an argument of abuse, which this is not, see my above post.

Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

	08-09-2004 00:14									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Ummm, ring scar? I had mine done as an infant so I cant speak for your BF but I have no ring scar.

Everyone does. I've seen a lot of cocks, mister. Porn and otherwise.

You may just be used to it?

quote: Done as an infant, remind me of the risks.

Infection is a high risk. You're cutting off skin in an area that's ripe with bacteria...think about it.

	08-09-2004 00:14									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Actually it doesn't. If you chop it off, it can't grow back. if you don't chop it off, it can be done later, if that person wants it.

Once again, you can only do so in a more painful and risky procedure than infant circumcision. The option youve eliminated is to be circumsized as an infant when its easy.

	08-09-2004 00:16									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

	08-09-2004 00:16									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark The question here is whether the state has a right to intervene "on the childs behalf" In my case that would have ended up being to my personal detriment, and i cant help but think that theres something wrong with a moral calculus that is flagrantly wrong in the my own case.

IMHO, in cases where one person wants to chop bits off another, it's down to that person. Not their parents. With the exception of medical necessity, where you'd need a DNR or somesuch for them not to do it. You can choose to have it done later. You cannot choose to have it undone.

If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

	08-09-2004 00:18									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Yes, the period when I think it's morally wrong, due to it being forced upon them. Chopping a part of a child off is wrong, IMHO, since that child may not share the view that it is better. I believe it is a person's choice, not their parents. The same as removing your appendix at birth. Unless there's a medical necessity, it should be the choice of the person themself. There are no long term medical problems with branding either, but I'd still class it as abuse unless it was the choice of that person.

Morally wrong? Are you smoking something?

We clearly have differing definitions of abuse. It's the erroneous use of someone or something. The notion of erroneous is a question of the beholder, unless pragmatically mitigating circumstances apply, as in the case of female circumcision whereby GBH is the result.

	08-09-2004 00:18									#46
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy I am prepared to concede that being circumsized means you require more "care" in anal sex, though apparently ripped foreskins are as painful as they are amusing to me, in "normal" sex all is good.

That's it, not only is it abuse, it's discrimination against gays!

	08-09-2004 00:19									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

Surprisingly, the reasons for banning it aren't religious. Unlike the reasons for having it done, which stinks of indoctrination too.

	08-09-2004 00:20									#48
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark But that wouldnt serve the purpose of discouraging Jews and muslims from moving to ones country, now would it?

fine. You may find to your astonishment that the real reason people oppose infant circumcision has nothing to do with religious bias but because they find the concept of someone violating the body of a child in this way unconscionable.

In those cases in which people do this because even though they are of sound mind they believe that it is commanded by G-d that they do this to their kids then I can see allowing an exception to preserve religious freedom. All i really care about is that nobody has to grow up having been violated in this way and have to live with this rape permanently.

	08-09-2004 00:21									#49
	Suffering from ads?

No-one who hasn't been circumcised will ever agree it's a good idea, who would willingly have a bit of their penis chopped off? If it's done when you were young, or for medical reasons later on in life then fair enough but in most cases there's absolutely no need. And if you are curcumcised and don't understand our point of view it's because you haven't had years to grow attached to the little fella.

	08-09-2004 00:21									#50
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Morally wrong? Are you smoking something?

No. IMHO believe cutting bits off a child to be morally wrong, regardless of their sex.

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy We clearly have differing definitions of abuse.

What's the difference between having a religious symbol perminantly branded on you, or a part of your body cut off as a perminant religious symbol, regardless of whether it's abuse or not? Neither has lasting physical consequences. Both cause pain. Both are irreversable, barring a skin graft.

	08-09-2004 00:23									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

Chicks dig a circumcised unit.

It looks much cleaner.

	08-09-2004 00:23									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Well everybody I've met who resented it didn't have it done for religious or cultural reasons, rahter it was done to them for 'medical tradition' or because it had been done to their parent or some other such ****. Perhaps circumcision of infants could be allowed for religious purposes but prohibited in other cases.

Nah, I go for consistency, theres more than enough of that to allow it for religious and secular reasons.

quote: Everyone does. I've seen a lot of cocks, mister. Porn and otherwise. You may just be used to it?

Looks like some self-examination is in order . Personally speaking, I find uncut penises the height of ugliness... it's almost as though he has something to hide underneath a small ocean of congealed smegma...

quote: If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

Except that one is outweighed by functionality, the degree of show, and the fact that it is less conspicuous.... one is inflicted, another is simply a question of individual difference, like a birthmark.

	08-09-2004 00:23									#53
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Drogue IMHO, in cases where one person wants to chop bits off another, it's down to that person. Not their parents. With the exception of medical necessity, where you'd need a DNR or somesuch for them not to do it. You can choose to have it done later. You cannot choose to have it undone. If your parents wanted to brand you, would the state be right to intervene? I don't see much of a difference between a perminant reminder of your parents religion, through a painful process, and another perminant reminder of your religion, through a painful process. Neither has lasting physical problems, in the majority of cases.

As you may be aware, in Judaism and Islam its not just a reminder, but a serious requirement of the religion.

I know nothing about the lasting effects of branding, or whether its easier done in infancy than later, or whatever, since its not in fact the practice of any major civilizations. In the case of circumcision it IS the historic practice of two major world religions, and the principle advocates for banning it are people who are either Christian or of Christian background.

The contrast with FGM should be clear - large numbers of those who had FGM as children want it banned - virtually no one who was circumcized for religious reasons wants it banned - there have to be reasons for this, and the fact has to be as relevant as abstract logical calculus.

	08-09-2004 00:24									#54
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Morally wrong? Are you smoking something? We clearly have differing definitions of abuse. It's the erroneous use of someone or something. The notion of erroneous is a question of the beholder, unless pragmatically mitigating circumstances apply, as in the case of female circumcision whereby GBH is the result.

smoking something isn't morally wrong (although I have never taken a puff because I value my health) but whacking parts off of other peoples bodies without their consent is as morally wrong as anything can get. In one action you permanently violate their privacy (which everybody cares so much about), their freedom, their property, and their bodily integrity. There aren't many immoral things that do as thorough a job as that.

	08-09-2004 00:24									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Whaleboy Looks like some self-examination is in order . Personally speaking, I find uncut penises the height of ugliness... it's almost as though he has something to hide underneath a small ocean of congealed smegma...

Are Brits really that unhygenic?

	08-09-2004 00:25									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Chicks dig a circumcised unit. It looks much cleaner.

Only if you don't clean an uncircumsized one. Wash it every day and it isn't dirty.

	08-09-2004 00:25									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Chicks dig a circumcised unit. It looks much cleaner.

Some do some don't. Seems to depend on where they are from.

	08-09-2004 00:25									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

*throws up*

	08-09-2004 00:28									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo fine. You may find to your astonishment that the real reason people oppose infant circumcision has nothing to do with religious bias but because they find the concept of someone violating the body of a child in this way unconscionable.

but why is a harmless permanent change a "violation" or, astoundingly, a "rape" apart from a cultural bias, on behalf of a culture that does NOT perform such acts. As for pain, why not ban spanking, or brussel sprouts, or dozens of things parents impose on their kids?

	08-09-2004 00:28									#60
	Remove this text

quote: Surprisingly, the reasons for banning it aren't religious. Unlike the reasons for having it done, which stinks of indoctrination too.

So now parents have no right to teach their child their religion?

quote: No. IMHO believe cutting bits off a child to be morally wrong, regardless of their sex.

Since when did you use the notion of morality in debates? When utilitarianism reaches a conclusion you disagree with you resort to profundities?

quote: What's the difference between having a religious symbol perminantly branded on you, or a part of your body cut off as a perminant religious symbol, regardless of whether it's abuse or not? Neither has lasting physical consequences. Both cause pain. Both are irreversable, barring a skin graft.

See above.