[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

Campaigners against female circumcision scored a major victory Monday with the approval by a key U.N. committee of a resolution calling for a global ban on female genital mutilation.
[...]
Female genital mutilation is a partial or complete removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs, for non-medical reasons
[...]
The resolution, adopted by consensus by the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee, calls the practice harmful and a serious threat to the psychological, sexual and reproductive health of women and girls.

It calls on the U.N.'s 193 member states to condemn the practice, known as FGM, and launch education campaigns for girls and boys, women and men, to eliminate it. It also urges all countries to enact and enforce legislation to prohibit FGM, to protect women and girls "from this form of violence," and to end impunity for violators.

With 110 sponsors, the resolution is virtually certain to be approved by the full General Assembly, which is expected to take it up in the second half of December. Although not legally binding, assembly resolutions reflect international concerns and carry moral and political weight.
[...]
The U.N. said in 2010 that about 70 million girls and women had undergone the procedure, and the World Health Organization said about 6,000 girls were circumcised every day.
[...]
Jose Luis Diaz, Amnesty International's U.N. representative, said this is the first time the General Assembly's human rights committee has addressed the problem.

"FGM is an indictment of us all — that a girl or young woman can be held down and mutilated is a violation of her human rights and, shockingly, an estimated three million girls are at risk each year," he said.

Alvilda Jablonko, coordinator of the FGM program at the organization No Peace Without Justice, applauded the committee's action as "a landmark step in the international campaign to foster global leadership" in the campaign against the practice.

So let's see... partial removal of genitalia for cultural, religious and other non-medical reasons... nothing comes to mind.... hmmmm... no clue at all.... what could it be?

Oh right. There are 600 million circumcised men in the world who have also had a part of their genitals forcibly removed for cultural, religious and non-medical reasons. This is at least five times the number of women affected in the same way. Where is my resolution?

Of course that mutilating genital organs for no reason whatsoever should be banned, but that goes for both genders, not just females. This resolution is completely hypocritical.

[bojangles]

yeah its weird theres never anything on male gential mutilation.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(11-27-2012 08:26 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

yeah its weird theres never anything on male gential mutilation.

Germany banned male circumcision for minors for non-medical reasons in July of this year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun...lim-jewish

[Timoteo]

While I kind of see your point, removing some skin isn't in the same ballpark as having your genitalia cut completely out with a dirty razor blade or some other instrument. I suggest you watch the film "Desert Flower," the story of fashion model Waris Dirie (model Liya Kebede played Dirie in the film. She was the African woman that was thrown out of the plane in "The Good Shepherd."). I know we like to point out double standards and inconsistencies between the sexes, but comparing male circumcision with genital mutilation is simply dishonest.

[megatron]

This video explains this:

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 09:42 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

While I kind of see your point, removing some skin isn't in the same ballpark as having your genitalia cut completely out with a dirty razor blade or some other instrument. I suggest you watch the film "Desert Flower," the story of fashion model Waris Dirie (model Liya Kebede played Dirie in the film. She was the African woman that was thrown out of the plane in "The Good Shepherd."). I know we like to point out double standards and inconsistencies between the sexes, but comparing male circumcision with genital mutilation is simply dishonest.

Huh?

How is slicing a necessary part of a person's reproductive organ not genital mutilation?

Your argument is that if we start clitoral circumcisions with safety and sterility measures, then that would cease to be genital mutilation?

[jammer]

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

Flat feet are disgusting: we should make amputation of flat feet law.

[Caligula]

(11-27-2012 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

You must be trolling. Please tell me how much experience you have with uncircumcised dicks?

I've gotten notches in the US just because I'm not circumcised (admittedly mainly due to the novelty factor).

It's only a problem if you don't know how to keep it clean and well taken care of.

[jammer]

(11-27-2012 10:15 AM)Caligula Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

You must be trolling.

I've gotten notches in the US just because I'm not circumcised (admittedly mainly due to the novelty factor).

It's only a problem if you don't know how to keep it clean and well taken care of.

Non circumcised is dirty and a huge risk for STD's. I can remember the first time I googled non circumcision and was shocked that people had penises like that. I guess the upside is that you are more sensitive though for some guys that extra sensitivity is actually a weakness.


What reactions do you get from girls? Do they fuck non circumcised guys often?

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:15 AM)Caligula Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

You must be trolling.

I've gotten notches in the US just because I'm not circumcised (admittedly mainly due to the novelty factor). It's only a problem if you don't know how to keep it clean and well taken care of.

I was circumcised when I was 8. A Jewish organization, who helped my newly immigrant family here, bribed me and my destitute parents with a shiny new bike to perform the procedure on me. How could I refuse?

Now, I feel that it was really wrong of them. I was 8, I would have let someone slice my pinky toes off if it meant getting a Nintentdo console. At least I had a semblance of a choice, though: most US-born babies have none whatsoever.

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:18 AM)jammer Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:15 AM)Caligula Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:11 AM)jammer Wrote:  

Male circumcision should be the law. Its disgusting to be non circumcized.

You must be trolling.

I've gotten notches in the US just because I'm not circumcised (admittedly mainly due to the novelty factor).

It's only a problem if you don't know how to keep it clean and well taken care of.

Non circumcised is dirty and a huge risk for STD's. I can remember the first time I googled non circumcision and was shocked that people had penises like that. I guess the upside is that you are more sensitive though for some guys that extra sensitivity is actually a weakness.


What reactions do you get from girls? Do they fuck non circumcised guys often?

Hands allow people to punch and shoot others. If people didn't have hands, the world would have much less violence in it: let's slice off hands at birth.

[Timoteo]

(11-27-2012 10:06 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 09:42 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

While I kind of see your point, removing some skin isn't in the same ballpark as having your genitalia cut completely out with a dirty razor blade or some other instrument. I suggest you watch the film "Desert Flower," the story of fashion model Waris Dirie (model Liya Kebede played Dirie in the film. She was the African woman that was thrown out of the plane in "The Good Shepherd."). I know we like to point out double standards and inconsistencies between the sexes, but comparing male circumcision with genital mutilation is simply dishonest.

Huh?

How is slicing a necessary part of a person's reproductive organ not genital mutilation?

Your argument is that if we start clitoral circumcisions with safety and sterility measures, then that would cease to be genital mutilation?

And you respond with even more dishonesty. I don't consider removal of foreskin to be mutilation. If you want to make that argument, find, I don't see where I tried to argue that removal of labia, the clitoris, clitoral hood, etc. in a more sterile environment lessens the fact that it's mutilation. I'm circumsized, and my genitals are definitely not mutilated. I'm thinking you have no idea what gential mutilation actually entails. The equivalent for men would be the removal of your penis head, or the whole penis and leaving just the urethral opening so you can still urinate.

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:24 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:06 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 09:42 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

While I kind of see your point, removing some skin isn't in the same ballpark as having your genitalia cut completely out with a dirty razor blade or some other instrument. I suggest you watch the film "Desert Flower," the story of fashion model Waris Dirie (model Liya Kebede played Dirie in the film. She was the African woman that was thrown out of the plane in "The Good Shepherd."). I know we like to point out double standards and inconsistencies between the sexes, but comparing male circumcision with genital mutilation is simply dishonest.

Huh?

How is slicing a necessary part of a person's reproductive organ not genital mutilation?

Your argument is that if we start clitoral circumcisions with safety and sterility measures, then that would cease to be genital mutilation?

And you respond with even more dishonesty. I don't consider removal of foreskin to be mutilation. If you want to make that argument, find, I don't see where I tried to argue that removal of labia, the clitoris, clitoral hood, etc. in a more sterile environment lessens the fact that it's mutilation. I'm circumsized, and my genitals are definitely not mutilated. I'm thinking you have no idea what gential mutilation actually entails. The equivalent for men would be the removal of your penis head, or the whole penis and leaving just the urethral opening so you can still urinate.

Slicing off a piece of a person's body without their consent: mutilation.

How am I wrong here?

[Timoteo]

I'm not even going to launch into a discussion of circumsized vs. uncircumsized. I'm sure everyone manages just fine. I do believe parents should have the option, and circumcision shouldn't be mandatory. But lets not let this discussion go off the rails.

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:29 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I'm not even going to launch into a discussion of circumsized vs. uncircumsized. I'm sure everyone manages just fine. I do believe parents should have the option, and circumcision shouldn't be mandatory. But lets not let this discussion go off the rails.

Heh. Good dodge there, bro.

/notReally

[Caligula]

(11-27-2012 10:18 AM)jammer Wrote:  

What reactions do you get from girls? Do they fuck non circumcised guys often?

Yes, being from America usually they've only fucked circumcised men.

They love it: they often say they prefer it. At worst its been neutral, but at best it's been a preference. Maybe it's the novelty factor, or maybe it's that I'm solidly endowed anyway.

Having foreskin makes you more sensitive. There are a lot of nerves in there so you may find sex more pleasant. Ribbed condoms recreate the feel of that band of that skin - if you're uncut you have that bonus naturally: there's extra friction and an extra dimension of sensation for you. You need less lube and handjobs are way easier.

On the other hand, yes it's more work to keep clean (though I've never had a problem with this) and yes there's a greater STD risk (from an already low % chance of catching anything at all).

That's just my experience. There are so many variables and experiences are very subjective so I'm sure we'll never reach a consensus.

The main issue, though, is choice: it's brutal not to give kids a choice in something that's going to so profoundly affect their life.

[bojangles]

Bet it was different for that week old baby boy who died here in the UK after circumcision was performed on him

[tomtud]

I have read the recent studies how it reduces the std risks slightly. That's fine. However, this practice has been going on for centuries where catching an std was not as widespread. Most men married the only woman that they had sex with. So, catching an std is virtually nil. (Not including yeast or anything minor). Those visiting prostitutes, well perhaps circumcision was the "condom" prior to rubber being harnessed.

There is an interesting video with Christopher Hitchens discussing circumcision. Do a youtube search.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=KZTS6iVpS...ZTS6iVpSPI

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKnSWo3hkf4

[megatron]

(11-27-2012 10:45 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

Bet it was different for that week old baby boy who died here in the UK after circumcision was performed on him

This baby's STD risk was diminished to zero: success.

[Blackhawk]

(11-27-2012 10:27 AM)megatron Wrote:  

Slicing off a piece of a person's body without their consent: mutilation.

How am I wrong here?

At a larger level:

There are birth defects that are fixed through surgery. And there are advantages to doing the surgery early in the development process, because the normal development process as the child increases in size to 30x initial body weight through the normal growth cycle will give a more complete healing.

When an infant is born with closed nostrils or ear canals, or other deformities, doing the surgery shortly after birth results in a better healing process than waiting until the child reaches adult body size and weight at the age of consent. Scars and incisions are smoothed out and reduced as part of body growth and increase in size.

Bringing it back to the topic:

There are many societies that practice male circumcision beyond Jews. Muslims also circumcise, many Christians circumcise, as do African tribal cultures. Some practice infant male circumcision, others use male circumcision as a male puberty right into adulthood. And some use circumcision as an adult initiation rite.

There is evidence that for males if you are going to be circumcised, being circumcised shortly after birth early in the developmental process and before the body growth cycle begins will heal significantly better than waiting for puberty and after sexual maturity after the growth cycle is nearly complete.

Mutilation is defined as degrading the appearance or function of the body. Circumcised males are able to have sex and urinate just as well or better than uncircumcised males. Therefore circumcision does not meet the standard of mutilation from a functional standard. Calling it such on the aesthetic level is possible, but merely shows which divided camp you're in, and given there seems to be some tie between climate and circumcision practicing cultures, may also just be reflective of your local geography.

[megatron]

How is a foreskin a birth defect?

It's really quite surprising how many of you are not only defending the use of male genital mutilation by force, but aren't even willing to admit that it is in fact mutilation.

I, nor any else here is saying that male circumcision is bad, just the use of it by FORCE upon babies/children is morally wrong. If you're an adult and you voluntarily choose to have a circumcision, more power to you. You're a grown man and you have every right to make such a decision about your body.

[yeah get some]

(11-27-2012 10:40 AM)Caligula Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 10:18 AM)jammer Wrote:  

What reactions do you get from girls? Do they fuck non circumcised guys often?

They love it: they often say they prefer it. At worst its been neutral, but at best it's been a preference. Maybe it's the novelty factor, or maybe it's that I'm solidly endowed anyway.

Having foreskin makes you more sensitive. There are a lot of nerves in there so you may find sex more pleasant. Ribbed condoms recreate the feel of that band of that skin - if you're uncut you have that bonus naturally: there's extra friction and an extra dimension of sensation for you. You need less lube and handjobs are way easier.

As someone who was circumcised as a baby, knowing this pisses me off so much.

Some people defend circumcision by saying "Well the foreskin can smell and it's disgusting". A woman's vagina can stink too, does that mean we should start cutting parts of the vagina off?

Evolution has given men foreskin for a reason. Without a foreskin, your gland becomes less sensitive from rubbing on your boxers and jeans. I remember reading somewhere that during the Victorian age they promoted circumcision to stop men from masturbating. Correct me if I am wrong.

My dick works fine and am able to cum while using condoms, but I always wonder what I am missing out on.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I think it is misleading to defend male circumcision by pointing out that it is "less damaging" than female circumcision. Less damaging than so called "class III female genital mutilation" (which is, I hasten to add, very rare), where entire clitoris, labia and possibly the vaginal entry are sliced, yes, that is analogue to a man losing his penis head (glans) or the entire penis. But that is not the point.

FGM is battled against because it violates the woman's right to her body and removes a part of her sexual organs for no medical reason whatsoever, based only on superstition (i.e. culture / religion). At best, it causes no harm. At worst, it can lead to injury or death. And I agree that it needs to be eliminated.

Male circumcision is exactly the same thing in all of those aspects. At best, the boy is lucky and there is no harm. At worst, the boy suffers complications, permanent damage or even death. You as a parent don't have the right to alter his body or expose him to that kind of risk unless it's for medical reasons!

What about the benefits?

a) lower STD rates in circumcised males, as found by several studies. Correlation !=! causation. It might be the result of different cultural or religious upbringing that sometimes goes along with it. I am not aware of any studies that prove that there is some biological mechanism that protects the circumcised penis from STDs. Medically speaking, unless explicitly proven, the concept makes no sense. Would you really think that, if you permanently remove a part of skin from your hand that is naturally there, that this part will become more resistant to infections?

b) looks aesthetically pleasing to (some) women. Wow, what a good idea. We should allow adding breast implants to baby girls too, just to give them a head start at attractiveness.

c) cleanliness / hygiene. Any part of your body will become infected if you never clean it. Duh! Would you amputate your child's hand because you can't teach him to wash his hands properly? Uncircumcised men don't need any special "foreskin-washing" phase while showering. There is no benefit to this one.

I'll say it again, as a parent, you simply don't have the right to permanently alter your child's body in that fashion, unless it's explicitly for immediate medical benefit. Compare circumcision with tonsilectomy (removal of tonsils if they're too large or get infected often). There is a clear benefit to surgery and it's known that there will be negative consequences if it's not done, which clearly outweigh the possible risks. And you don't do it in advance at birth just because you can, you do it only because it's started causing proven, repeated problems.

Let anyone who wants to be circumcised, male or female, do so. But not at birth. It should be a personal decision.

[teh_skeeze]

Male circumcision isn't going to end anytime soon. Doctors make bank off of it, they charge $150-300 for what is a 5 minute procedure. These foreskins are then sold to the cosmetics industry to be used in facial creams. Money drives agenda. Next time you see a woman using facial cream, ask her how it feels to rub baby dicks on her face.

Quote:

Mutilation is defined as degrading the appearance or function of the body.

You were going good, but killed your whole argument with that statement. You are making the assumption that the foreskin is useless and not aesthetically pleasing. The first part of the statement is subjective. However, the foreskin does have use, therefore circumcision does degrade the function of the body.

Full disclosure: Intact