Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[moocowmoo]

I am starting to wonder if it is legal to tatoo your baby. Like... can you put a big skull tatoo right on is chest?

As long as it is religiously sanctioned by Armok, yes.

[Criptfeind]

I assume you are not intact yourself, or if you are, then you would not object to the removal of your foreskin. That would be fine, because it is unimportant to you and it is your decision. But try to force that decision on an intact man who does believe his foreskin is important, and he would probably defend himself with violence before letting you have your way. Do it to a child, and they cannot fight back. I understand if it is easier for you to disbelieve me.

I'm going stop you right here bunko. You are, once again, arguing with a straw man. I did not say that I approved of the procedure. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you want to argue against me, do it against my point. (Which in case you have forgotten is the amount of damage you have said this does.)

That was not the only point you put forward. You also claimed that the foreskin and everything else removed in circumcision are not important. I tried to convey that it actually is. I already answered you as to the damage circumcision does and you rejected what I said, so I don't see what more I can do. I suppose it's too much to ask that you prove your claim that the foreskin is in fact not important and thus the removal of it is negligible.

People live normal lives circumcised lives without any issues. There is no... Anything at all to show it is important. You are not mutilated.

[Neonivek]

I am starting to wonder if it is legal to tatoo your baby. Like... can you put a big skull tatoo right on is chest?

As long as it is religiously sanctioned by Armok, yes.

It sounds silly but yes... I would like to know.

It is actually very important to the discussion. Afterall if Criptfeind is correct then it is a purely cosmetic proceedure outside of religion. So you are essentially sculpting your baby's privates to look a certain way. So I guess we could consider this plastic surgery for your baby to have nicer looking privates.

[moocowmoo]

That was not the only point you put forward. You also claimed that the foreskin and everything else removed in circumcision are not important. I tried to convey that it actually is. I already answered you as to the damage circumcision does and you rejected what I said, so I don't see what more I can do. I suppose it's too much to ask that you prove your claim that the foreskin is in fact not important and thus the removal of it is negligible.

People live normal lives circumcised lives without any issues. There is no... Anything at all to show it is important. You are not mutilated.

In your own words "your anecdotal evidence hardly stands since for everyone that agrees with you there are plenty that have not experienced what you have."

[Criptfeind]

Afterall if Criptfeind is correct

Stop putting words in my mouth kthxbai

That was not the only point you put forward. You also claimed that the foreskin and everything else removed in circumcision are not important. I tried to convey that it actually is. I already answered you as to the damage circumcision does and you rejected what I said, so I don't see what more I can do. I suppose it's too much to ask that you prove your claim that the foreskin is in fact not important and thus the removal of it is negligible.

People live normal lives circumcised lives without any issues. There is no... Anything at all to show it is important. You are not mutilated.

In your own words "your anecdotal evidence hardly stands since for everyone that agrees with you there are plenty that have not experienced what you have."

Except. People do. Clearly you can actually live unimpaired. If you have a serious issue with it, fine, you do, but not because of the surgery itself.

[Fenrir]

If you have a serious issue with it, fine, you do, but not because of the surgery itself.

He has a serious issue with it, so, clearly, it is possible for someone to have a serious issue with it. Does not the possiblity that the child will object later trump a parent's right to make phallus sculptures ... er, rather, circumcise the child?

[Criptfeind]

Yes.

[Fenrir]

I see ... debating health effects specifically. I should have read further back in the thread.

[moocowmoo]

I don't get it. You demand that I prove the impact of circumcision on sexual functioning only with scientific study, reject the ones I offered and scoff at anecdotal evidence. Yet you can make the claim that there is nothing at all important about the function of the foreskin, that loss of sensation cannot be attributed to the surgery, and your evidence is a couple sentences of pure anecdote. Some people are unaffected does not equal all people are unaffected. There are many degrees of circumcision... some men have part of their frenulum remaining and loose skin on the shaft, and they are lucky. Others were cut so tight that they don't even have enough skin to support an erection and the penis bends painfully, and hair from the scrotum is pulled up along the shaft. Sorry but it's bullshit to say "there isn't anything at all" to show the importance of the foreskin.

[Agdune]

Gah. Fine, I'll feed into this fucking thing.

Clearly you can actually live unimpaired. If you have a serious issue with it, fine, you do, but not because of the surgery itself.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

One key point to observe. The figures under examination do not include complications of an aesthetic nature (e.g. botched jobs needing repeating later on or basic scarring which itself can lead to desensitisation or other issues)

(At 1.25 million circumcisions of newborns in the US per year, a 0.5% infection rate amounts to 6000 cases per year, and a 4% overall rate of complications requiring treatment represents 48,000 patients experiencing avoidable morbidity.)

If you take the time to read over the page, you may notice that there actually are quite a few complications that can arise from the procedure. I do like the story from the guy whos glans was accidently cut off about 3/4ths of the way down the page. Can't orgasm and has a completely dysfunctional sex life. I'm sure he and his parents would agree that it was worth it though, to get rid of that foreskin.

edit: I'm sure it's just my settings, but I find it strange how I keep on starting new pages when I post.

[Neonivek]

Stop putting words in my mouth kthxbai

What words? Your arguement is based on making us prove that it affects anything. While at the same time you are not presenting a possitive.

No negative or possitive... It is a surgery. Without religious context it becomes cosmetic.

I am sorry if I am not as forward thinking as most people.

[Bauglir]

The tattoo thing was totally something I said, though, so you can put those words in my mouth instead of Criptfeind's, because I already did.

I'm too tired (and I don't just mean in the immediate sense, but as a general condition of my life these days) to do the research properly, so I want to make clear that my opinion is entirely conditional upon the assumption that properly performed circumcisions have no side effects on a statistically significant portion of the population, other than the omnipresent risk of infection in all surgeries (even those done properly). If that assumption is false, which is entirely possible based on the conversation so far, then I'll have to agree that it's a practice that ought be restricted to consenting adults. I apologize for not being able to actually be more concrete.

[moocowmoo]

Haha sorry Agdune. If it's any consolation, I promise not to lump you in with pedophiles and rapists etc for being a man.

Neonivek, I'm pretty sure that tattooing a child would be considered child abuse and illegal. Funny because a tattoo can be removed and circumcision cannot be undone.

[kaenneth]

In another circ debate I had once read that circumcised men tend to be 'rougher' for women during sex, partly due to the loss of sensitivity and lubrication. Basically in order to get the same amount of stimulation they have to work harder, which ends up being less gentle on the woman. Not gonna google for the details, since I'm at work right now. I'll try and find it again later, unless someone else manages to find it before I get home.

[Willfor]

In another circ debate I had once read that circumcised men tend to be 'rougher' for women during sex, partly due to the loss of sensitivity and lubrication. Basically in order to get the same amount of stimulation they have to work harder, which ends up being less gentle on the woman. Not gonna google for the details, since I'm at work right now. I'll try and find it again later, unless someone else manages to find it before I get home.

And you will find women who either 1) find it a net benefit, 2) find it a net detriment, or 3) don't give a shit.