You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

reply to post by stumason


It's possible. I need to up my caffeine dosage.

No harm, no foul.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Well, I got news for you, we mutilate our baby sons over here in America as well, and we just call it circumcism.

Ya, for some reason when i was less than a week old the world i was born into thought my penis was too big, so they made it smaller. memories are sketchy, but if i remember correctly, i didn't care for it too much.

aim men,
-et

reply to post by ofhumandescent


I can tell you from experience We don't remember it, so it really doesn't matter.

Circumscized penises are cleaner, thus more enjoyable for both the male and the female (assuming all other traditional bodily hygiene is taken care of)

Most, and I say most, Female sexual mutilation is done so that sex is purposefully less enjoyable, such as destruction or removal of the clitoris. The sexual mutilation on boys that you refer to was an old tradition that was hygienic in nature, nothing to do with sexual performance. It should also be noted that the sexual organ of the male is never cut, only a tiny fold of skin covering said organ.

reply to post by ofhumandescentThank you for your kind words. I wish I could say the same for my mother (not the dying bit), but the truth is that she's even more dysfunctional than I am, despite having made a decent career for herself & raised my sisters & I. She's still bang in denial about much that we just accepted as the norm when we were kids, but which I later realised was no way to go about being a parent.
It wasn't until much later that I started researching psychology, so for my kids early lives, I didn't have the proper vocabulary to describe what I was on about, but I sure-as-death&taxes knew what was cool & what wasn't!
My partner's parents were also a pair of loons, but fortunately, for most of our kids early lives, they were living abroad. Nonetheless, we made a conscious decision to restrict all our parent's access to our children & to "debrief" them afterwards.
That toxic shame is a persistant & sly mofo &, even tho we didn't understand the concept back then, we knew that something was basically wrong with our parents & us. All we could do was crack on & try to do everything differently.
That said, I reckon we threw some of the baby out with the bathwater. Hey ho, they're alive, major cool & usually happy. Even if they are a pair of 'kin idiots at times!
Your compassion comes through in pretty much everything I've read from you on ATS. It just goes to show that a person can take hard times & not react by lashing out back at life. I wish I could always maintain that demeanor, which is my ideal, but which I often fall short of.

reply to post by Rockpuck



"nothing to do with sexual performance"

What do you have left to compare it to?

"hygiene"

And that is the same old song and dance the medical community has used for to long.

Do some research, scores of it on the net.


www.circumcision.org...


Can you actually watch it and listen to it?




Doctors Oath that they take. "primum non nocere" "First, do no harm"

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Circumscized penises are cleaner, thus more enjoyable for both the male and the female (assuming all other traditional bodily hygiene is taken care of)

Said as if it is scientific fact, when really it is merely opinion.

How can you be so sure it is cleaner and more enjoyable? Surely that is down to the person in question and their own personal hygiene?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ofhumandescent

 

I can tell you from experience

We don't remember it, so it really doesn't matter.

Anecdotal experience isn't evidence. Do you have any proof of your statement?

Circumscized penises are cleaner, thus more enjoyable for both the male and the female (assuming all other traditional bodily hygiene is taken care of)

Even if you keep repeating it it is still a lie.

Most, and I say most, Female sexual mutilation is done so that sex is purposefully less enjoyable, such as destruction or removal of the clitoris. The sexual mutilation on boys that you refer to was an old tradition that was hygienic in nature, nothing to do with sexual performance. It should also be noted that the sexual organ of the male is never cut, only a tiny fold of skin covering said organ.

And yet this study in Sudan showed that 90% of women sampled experienced orgasm during intercourse. It also explains why they actually do it and it isn't the reason you've given here.

[WARNING: Link contains photo of post FGM genitalia]
www.fgmnetwork.org...

That doesn't mean it is any less barbaric. So your comment here doesn't address the issue. You do not have any right to mutilate another persons genitals with out their consent for any reason be it male or female.

I'll tell you one thing.

I'm sure as hell glad I got circumcised.
I'm sure you know why.

reply to post by Alexander the Great


Nope, not a clue.

Do share...

reply to post by Darkrunner

Because it looks cleaner, and not like an animal....

Do you mean that an uncut penis looks like an animal, or that animals are uncut?
Either way, have you ever examined your anus in a mirror? Its not straightforward, but if you bend down & look between your legs, its doable. The reason I ask is because, if you need any further evidence than your more obvious mammalian characteristics that you are indeed an animal, the sight of your backside will do the trick.

reply to post by templar knight

no different to chopping somones floppy ear off.

Well, a couple of my friends allowed their son to have elective surgery on his ears. Now, to be fair, he was the FA Cup (translation: large trophy with protruding handles) & he was getting the piss ripped out of him at school.
The difference is that altering the shape of the pinna in childhood would not impact on his hearing later in life. That most certainly isn't true of messing with a kids bell end, which cannot but have an impact on sexual function later on.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by brutalsun

 

All the little details your arguing, do not stop what it is equivalent too, and most aware people know this including professionals.

Not arguing the brutality... As I said in my original post if you would have read it. We want to be informed YES? Correct information? Accurate as possible? Please do not belittle me for trying to contribute to correcting a little misinformation.

C'mon guys really (both side of this debate). This is turning into a prime example of how polarization, and division works. I want everone to realize that a deeper mechanism is at work here that goes beyond the issue. How many of us truly realize, and can compensate for the way our own brain works? Not many. We are not a logical being capable of feeling emotions. It's the other way around. We are emotional beings that have the capacity to be logical, but it isn't primary nature. Marketers, and politicians know this, and capitalize on it. People who have an agenda also find it quite convenient, mostly unintentionally. If I can stroke the right emotional chord within someone I can literally change the way their brain processes information. Strike a strong enough note, and logic goes right out the window, and you can lead the mob to commit whatever acts you wish. It has happened a lot in our history, and still happens today.

This differential of opinion is no different than any other. For example "Stupid, lame brained, bleading heart, socialist scum Democrat Vs. Hard hearted, war mongering, elitist Republican." My perspective on the issue at hand: "Heartless, brainwashed zombie, mutilator cirumcisers, Vs. Gross, unclean, ill-educated philistine sporters of winkies naturale." If you find yourself falling into either of these two camps, check yourself. The good news is, you're both wrong.

If you have to pin hyperbolic names to the people on the other side of the argument to make your point you are relying on an emotional ploy to make your statement. This seriously erodes your credibility regardless of who, or what you site as proof. The real damage being done is not a whacked peepee, or a gooey cheese roll. It is the attempt to force people to see things your way regardless of their personal experiences, and knowledge that may have lead them to a different conclusion. In regards to the actual procedure if you did it, or had it done you were right in your decision as no relavent harm was done, and you might have saved yourself or child from some complications down the road, and joined a group of people with the opinion that it looks better. If you didn't have it done, and don't do it to your children then you also made the right decision based on what you want for yourself, and children. You now have a choice to have it later, or not, and have joined a group of people with the opinion that it feels better, and removing it is unnecessary. Both of these camps are right. The only right, or wrong here is your desire to push your beliefs ,by emotional force if necessary, onto someone else. Geez, I thought only religious nuts did that. (let that sink in.)

Why don't you try to understand how the other side came to thier conclusion, and make a sincere effort to see it from that perspective. If you are too emotionally charged to be able to do that you probably made your decision based too much on emotion, and have quite possibly made a bad decision. After empathizing, and relating to the other side's perspective you still don't have to espouse their ideas, but you will find yourself less defensive, and no longer view them as "wrong" or "the enemy". Now you can have a true open communication with them, and have a much higher chance of them valuing your opinion. Yelling names at each other, and pinning tags on each other is very childish. Learn to see beyond the emotional fog on charged issues, and get to the truth. You don't have to be wrong for me to be right, and vice versa. Most things are a choice with pros, and cons for either path after the decision. Own your decisions, deny ignorance. Stop trying to own other peoples decisions. That is the only wrong decision in this debate

reply to post by Binder


Wow, so following this logic it's the right thing to mutilate the genitalia of 8 year old girls, to commit genocide against a people, and to rape entire cities so long as pro can be argued along with the cons. This is the logic of NAMBLA and other abusers.

This is the most disgusting post I have ever read in my entire life.

ETA: You also create the same problem by telling everyone to listen to your POV because you marginalize everyone's beliefs by calling them hyperbole. There is a word for that.... Hypocrite.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


Thanks for exemplifying the emotional ploy technique. Great use of hyperbolic phrasing. I can feel the illogical emotional buzz over the internet!! We aren't directly debating female circumcision, which is mutilation as it has no pros, only cons. It is a side issue brought up by posters other than myself. I am not defending anything except rational thought. Never in any manner did I imply that I was defending a cultural act beyond our direct topic of discussion. You tried to put those words in my mouth, unsuccessfully. Great emotional ploy though A+ for effort. The whole "most disgusting ever." bit... gold, pure gold. Do you find all logical discussion disgusting or only that with which you personally disagree? Do you really need to attack me to feel secure? Is that because you are insecure in your own position on the matter, or because you can't accept that anyone else in the world should be allowed to have a differing opinion?

reply to post by 412304

no matter how many biased videos you want to watch it doesn't change the fact that there is no real "downside" to male circumcision

As I've asked others, I'll ask you, how do you know? If someone had poked your eyes out as soon as you were born, you'd have no experience of sight, so how could you know what it is like?
Exactly. You would have no frame of reference. Its just the same.
Your penis is the way it is. It works for you. However, you have no idea what having it intact into middle age feels like & there is no scientific way to compare the 2 states, because, whilst doctors can poke pins into the glans of cut & uncut men to determine how sensitive that skin is, a cut man doesn't have the inside of the foreskin to test. Believe it: its very sensitive.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Perhaps a good basis for a study. Test the sensitivity of the skin below the glans of a circumsized man, and how much area is how sensitive, and compare it to the foreskin of an uncircumsized man, how much area is how sensitive. Also the age at which circumcision occured if it did. Then we would have empirical evidence of whether or not we are throwing away an erogenous zone(that would be terrible) or if the brain can rewire to make what is left a comparable erogenous zone if the circumcision is done at an early age, or if it also occurs later. This would make for a very good research project if there are any medical students out there looking for material. Two schools of thought on this matter. One school is that the anatomy matters, and the other school is that orgasm as well as any other experience occurs in the brain regardless of anatomy. It would be definitive work.

Originally posted by Binder
Thanks for exemplifying the emotional ploy technique.

inferring emotion does not refute my claim.

Great use of hyperbolic phrasing. I can feel the illogical emotional buzz over the internet!!

Claiming hyperbole is hyperbolic. I can play this game, too.

We aren't directly debating female circumcision, which is mutilation as it has no pros, only cons.

Uh, I could play devil's advocate and argue pros. There by proving my point about your logic.

It is a side issue brought up by posters other than myself. I am not defending anything except rational thought. Never in any manner did I imply that I was defending a cultural act beyond our direct topic of discussion. You tried to put those words in my mouth, unsuccessfully.

No, I followed your logic. I can argue pros for FGM; therefore, following your logic you have to admit that I am correct in my position that it is a good thing.

Great emotional ploy though A+ for effort. The whole "most disgusting ever." bit... gold, pure gold. Do you find all logical discussion disgusting or only that with which you personally disagree? Do you really need to attack me to feel secure? Is that because you are insecure in your own position on the matter, or because you can't accept that anyone else in the world should be allowed to have a differing opinion?

I didn't attack you personally. So feel free to address my actual argument.

My son just turn 9 years old, when he was born thank god I had enough sense to know better than to let that happen to him. I am very angry that it happen to me.

I swear, between war and all the other cave man activities going on in this world it amazes me that we think we are civilized.

Chop off part of a Babies Penis?!!!!!! Hahahahah.........wake up silly people!

oh well, that was my 20 cents...carry on

reply to post by stumason

If you have an excessive amount of nob-cheese, then you probably have other hygiene issues as well because you clearly don't know how to wash.

Totally. I wonder how long these people claiming "hygiene" think it takes for knob-cheese to build up?
When I've got work, I regularly go away for 4-5 days & if there's showering facilities, its a rarity. I just hit the basin in the bogs & do my best. There are times however when the schedule is so tiring that, between the work, sleep & time to get some food down me, I dont even get to rinse off in a basin. I recently did a stint that was supposed to be 4 days, but I got another 1 night job straight after, then got called back to the original job for another 5 days. I managed to shower twice in those 10 days & the only changes of clothing I had were 1 each of undies, socks & T-shirt. I was 'kin stinking by the time I got home. Also, I'd been letting some mates use my place in a reciprocal arrangement, so I knew it'd be wreckage. I called my g/f & got her to meet me at a hotel for the night. It just seemed easier, because she lives with family & they disapprove of me
Guess what? Smelly clothes, certainly, but nary a sign of any smegma. She was completely happy to jump in the bath with me for a good soaping. Now, this woman is quite a bit younger than me & something of a super-bling merchant, so trust me when I say she's not the kind of person to put up with anything unpleasant. Scruffy clothes is about the limit she'll stand from me...