Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court

Originally posted by jheated5
I love being circumsized, it's great really I don't have to worry about pulling skin back to clean out that disgusting cheese or fungus or whatever you wanna call it in there yuck!

Grose, I am not sure what men you have been with but thats unhealthy.

Plus the women LOVE it! Every woman I've been with or talked to say they CRINGE at the sight of an uncircumsized one and say it's absolutely gross!

My hot girlfriend said that she has said that to cut men so they wouldnt feel bad. They dont like the feeling of dried out mutilated organs but some girls like sleeping with animals others like children or fake silicon breasts. Its all preference and opinion. Its great being natural and un-mutilated.

No need to feel sorry for us cut guys, we're doing just fine....

I feel sorry for the lesser men that have been mutilated before they even had a choice. But congrats trying to shed a positive light on a disgusting practice.

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping it soft, moist, and sensitive, it has a lot of nerve endings on the inside, which are sensitive. Acts kind of like a natural lubricant, so you don't need external lube.
Can make sex easier. About 70-80% of the world's men are uncircumcised, some women prefer it.

A very recent study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32. About 40% were circumcised. The intact males had a slightly lower rate of sexually transmitted infections than the circumcised but there was no significant difference.

This should put this debate to rest.

1. Full penis length and circumference. The "prepuce" (foreskin) constitutes 50% or more of the skin system of the penis [1]. If unfolded and spread flat, the average adult foreskin measures 60-90 square centimeters (10-14 square inches) [2], or about the size of an index card [see illustration]. The foreskin creates a visibly longer penis, especially when the foreskin extends beyond the head of the penis. Also, the double-layered tissue of the foreskin engorges with blood during erection and creates a visibly and sensually thicker shaft and glans.When the engorged foreskin retracts behind the coronal ridge of the glans, it often creates a wider and more pronounced "ridge" that many partners find especially stimulating during penetrative intercourse. The circumcised penis appears truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].

www.noharmm.org...

www.noharmm.org...



IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping it soft, moist, and sensitive, it has a lot of nerve endings on the inside, which are sensitive.

*sigh* Here we go again.

The foreskin of humans is insufficient to be considered a protective organ. It is not a proper sheath as many other mammals have.

Similarly, the 'benefits' of moisture are muted as the foreskin simply does not provide that much protection.

The glans of circumcised individuals cannot be experimentally demonstrated to be less sensitive than those of uncircumcised individuals - so that's also a rather moot point.

The only outstanding issue is that of nerve endings in the foreskin. However, neural plasticity gives credibility to the standpoint that a loss of nerve endings does not inherently indicate a loss of experience.

Acts kind of like a natural lubricant, so you don't need external lube.

This is a bit subjective. Natural lubrication will only last about five minutes in most pairings. This is sufficient for the average duration of 2.5 - 3.5 minutes. For longer or more prolonged sequences of engagements (where natural lubrication excretions decline) - lubrication is recommended whether you are circumcised or not.

Most of the lubrication comes from the female. Blood plasma crosses the membranes and forms the basis of vaginal fluids during sexual encounters.

Can make sex easier. About 70-80% of the world's men are uncircumcised, some women prefer it.

About 70-80% of the men in the world -should- boil their water before drinking it, too.

For many, it's not about a choice to not be circumcised - it's a complete lack of choice to be circumcised. Though if your point is that circumcision isn't necessary for survival, one can easily point to an absence of civil liberties. Most of the men in the world don't have those, either - and they get along alright.

The discussion isn't about what's popular or about what's necessary for survival - rendering your point off the mark.

A very recent study in New Zealand followed a cohort of boys through life from birth to age 32.

Would be interesting to see that study. What was the population sample size? What were the selection factors? How were the data collected? Were the participants aware of the study's goals? What were the demographics?

I'm not saying it is wrong - but if you can't answer those questions about the study - then you've not applied any of your own thought or analysis to the merits and implications of the study - and thus reducing yourself to a tool of propaganda.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


That's not the web page of an activist group or anything. See ATS rules and regs regarding posting off-site excerpts. While one can stretch these a bit - you've quoted the whole damned page. (Remember that tool of propaganda remark?)

www.netdoctor.co.uk...

www.unicef.org...

Not that I really need to get into arguing with a website. Most of the points made are subjective and specious reasoning. Those that aren't have little to no scientific basis (meaning experimental or even correlative data).

The same arguments can be made in reverse. Plenty of circumcised men lead happy and enjoyable lives with their sexual partner(s).

Sometimes, people get caught up arguing over moot points. I will never know what it is like to not be circumcised. You will never know what it is like to have been circumcised from birth. Just like I will never know what would have happened if I'd handled the tense situation surrounding the break up with a girl I'd wanted to propose to differently.... Though considerably more time is spent entertaining the former notion as opposed to the latter.

In either case - it's moot. I don't have the option to change a past that's already been established (just in case you decide to try and work quantum mechanics into this argument...). I do, however, have the option to work with what opportunities are available to me currently. It's easy to let your imagination distract you with possible pasts as opposed to potential futures.

Wish that lesson could have come at a lower price than my parents. A lot of times I've wondered what it would be like to call them up as a young adult... but any time I start to play the small violin, I remind myself that what I feel I'm missing is all imaginary - because I can only imagine what it would be like, and am only upset those phantasms are not reality.

If you're going to employ red herrings - do it right.

reply to post by Aim64C




You only say that because you dont have a foreskin.

I don't know about you all, but as a man who was "clipped" at birth, I remember nothing of the procedure. All this talk of "trauma" being inflicted is so much nonsense. Who the hell has ANY recollection, a memory of ANYTHING when they were a week old? Anyone that says they do is a goddamn liar.

Oh, and by the way, by penis functions perfectly fine, thank you very much.

So it's perfectly ok to mutilate children as long as they dont remember anything and they dont lose function to their bodily parts? Are you seriously saying that?

I forgot where I found it, but I once read an interesting correlation between circumcision, aggression and the military. Some ancient armies were forced into circumcision, with the worn-out excuse for "health" reasons. Anyway the article postulated that it was to make the men more aggressive, because they received less pleasure from their member, and it engrained in them a practice of having their manhood "branded" and themselves essentially "owned".

I think it's interesting, that of the countries that have "enforced" circumcision, most of them contain the most warring, violent men in modern times. Namely, America, and the Middle-East.

Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one-sixth[2] to a third,[3] and it is commonly practiced between infancy and the early twenties.[88] The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[88] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, parts of Southeast Asia, Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea.

Source: Wikipedia

I think it's rather interesting. . .

reply to post by PsykoOps


No what the poster is saying and I agree with is that circumcision is not traumatic in the sense that no one will be affected later in life mentally.

But you already knew what he was saying. You are better than that, I have read many posts from you over the years and I know you are smarter than that dude.

Everyone has the right to disagree with this practice. What you dont have the right to do is tell me what i am allowed to do. Notice no one is saying that everyone should be circumcised, they are defending their right to choose as a parent. The other side however is all to happy to proclaim what the rest of the world should do though and I think it's offensive and selfish.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

What you dont have the right to do is tell me what i am allowed to do. Notice no one is saying that everyone should be circumcised, they are defending their right to choose as a parent.

This is where you are wrong. The society in whole does have the right prevent you from harming your children. You cant beat your children just cause they are your own. You cant abuse them. Society has the right and the duty to defend children from abusive parents who want to mutilate them for their own pleasure. Children do have rights too you know, human rights.

reply to post by PsykoOps


There is a problem with your reasoning. Your idea of "human rights" seems to be in the form of what society itself considers acceptable and does not refer to inalienable human rights as I presume you mean. What happens when the society that others live in has different ideals and rights afforded to individuals in comparison to your own?

For example, what if people living in a remote African tribe condone the use of physical violence on children to instil discipline? Does this society have the right to punish parents who refuse to use physical violence on their children? Do the parents living in this society have the right not to use violence when discipline is warranted?

reply to post by Shadow Herder

You only say that because you dont have a foreskin.

And you only say that because you do.

Oooo - I just turned this into highschool!

Whoever gets the most stars is the ATS Council President and Circumcision Debate King/Queen.

reply to post by PsykoOps

So it's perfectly ok to mutilate children as long as they dont remember anything and they dont lose function to their bodily parts? Are you seriously saying that?

It's perfectly okay to conceive children in a world where war is, essentially, inevitable and competition between individuals a mandatory fact of life?

Where do we draw the line?

My brother was left with his webbed toe on one foot by my parents - but they decided to have surgery done on his eyes to prevent blindness in one eye (due to incorrect muscle placement leading to improper vision that would eventually cause is brain to ignore that eye). Yet they had surgery done on my youngest brother so that he didn't have to point his penis straight up in the air to urinate in an appropriate direction.

Hell - I was born two months premature and spent quite some time in an incubator. Statistically speaking - I was going to be a sickly child with a high probability for cognitive disorders. I'm a living exception to those statistics.

I didn't ask to be born. I can't say i would have even agreed with the decision for me to be born (I'd rather be born a few hundred more years in the future - when the technology I foresee being possible will likely be in existence) - especially when calculating the risk factors (hell - I consider myself to be something of a walking dead person - I 'died' several times during birth; my father was certain I'd be a stillborn).

So, this whole circumcision/anticircumcision debate is delightfully quaint in my eyes. You're simply a fool if you have a strong opinion on the process of circumcision. The only strong opinion I have related to it is that of legality and the role of government.

It is not the job of government to tell individuals licensed by panels of professionals what is and is not a reasonable procedure. Particularly when that panel of professionals is commissioned and/or appointed by government authority to begin with.

One of the facts that any government of a large nation is going to have to put up with is that people will make decisions that are controversial in the eyes of society. There are going to be individuals to make those decisions, and individuals to service them - regardless. The issue is not whether or not the individuals should/shouldn't make those decisions - they most certainly will. The issue is how to minimize the risks associated with those decisions and provide for more responsible execution of those decisions.

There are risks associated with circumcision.

There are risks associated with o'naturale.

Government - if anything - has the responsibility to ensure individuals can make responsible decisions and be prepared for the responsibilities their decisions accompany. It should be to empower the individual and the medical professionals - not to shackle them to arbitrary regulations.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Yes back in the stone age we didn't have human rights. We weren't civilised enough. Moot point.

reply to post by Aim64C


Why would you even compare injuries or defects with something that is 100% natural? Not the same thing, not even close.
Btw, you are a fool if you argue that you're allowed to slice up your children because some dude who floats in the sky told you to.

reply to post by PsykoOps

Why would you even compare injuries or defects with something that is 100% natural? Not the same thing, not even close.

A 'defect' is the natural outcome of a different set of genetics or altered gestation environment.

Can you rationally defend that the foreskin is not a defect shared by the entire species? The human body has plenty of unnecessary and even troublesome natural parts. The 'pinky' and 'little toe' are completely unnecessary (though current machine interfaces make use of them, as to musical instruments). The appendix regularly gets infected and is completely unnecessary in a social environment (it likely existed as a repository for digestive bacteria in the event the intestines were flushed during a bout of incontinence).

These are commonly referred to as vestigial organs:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.livescience.com...

Of course - a few of these structures have had their "vestigiality" challenged:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Now - I still have my appendix and it's not given me any trouble (*knocks on wood*) - and some of those things I can't do anything about.

However - would you fault a parent for having their child or infant's appendix removed (as soon as medically advisable)? Does the risk of appendicitis justify the surgery? Probably depends upon where in the world you are and the reliability of emergency surgery access. In the U.S. - probably not considered a reasonable measure - but not necessarily unreasonable, either.

Kind of like buying a pair of expensive sun glasses or watch brand. Not necessarily reasonable - but not necessarily unreasonable, either.

Circumcision is similar. There are problems that can develop with the foreskin later on in life that would require considerably more destructive surgery to fix. Phemosis of the skin is common with age - in some cases it gets bad enough to make retraction impossible (and/or injurious). Under most modern conditions - hygiene isn't an issue - but proper care becomes far more important when under more adverse conditions (which are not all that uncommon). Rates of penile cancer are far higher in individuals with a foreskin, as are infantile bladder infections and other issues.

Whether or not those add up to a reason to circumcise is a question that is best answered by a discussion between parents and medical professionals that can take things into account.

Honestly - the kid is not likely to care either way. He's not going to have some kind of mental breakdown at puberty because he doesn't have a foreskin; nor is he likely to shower you with affection and respect for deciding to remove it (or leave it). He's going to be a teenager regardless, and your concern is going to be making sure he doesn't bring home a pregnant girlfriend (not whether or not his orgasm was better/worse because he was/wasn't circumcised).

Btw, you are a fool if you argue that you're allowed to slice up your children because some dude who floats in the sky told you to.

When have I ever said that?

Further - when you consider the hygiene conditions under which those religions first lived (you are unlikely to have lived in an environment where you drink four liters of water in a four hour span and never once have to pee) - the 'commandment by god' to do this makes much more sense as a survival tactic as opposed to some mystical one.

Religion was once a form of government responsible for many of the same things our governments are, currently (in some areas - it still is; I can get fined or go to jail if I don't wear long sleeves and pants during Ramadan... even though it's going to be 120 in the shade with 80-90% humidity... and rape my ass with a cactus if I get caught chewing gum). There was a logical reason for many of those practices at one time (even if modern conditions have rendered them unnecessary) - Kosher food, for example - quick deaths to animals with fewer risks of carrying food-borne illnesses released fewer stress hormones (which have been shown to affect the consuming predator).

So, sometimes, that "floating guy in the sky" had some pretty good ideas. If anything - we are wrong for assuming he's no longer trying to give us good ideas (or not encouraging us to come up with our own).

reply to post by PsykoOps


I guess you are right. You can tell me all day long what i should do but i dont have to listen to you. It really bothers me that ya'll worry so much about other peoples penises.

Also you can drop the religion, i dont see anyone here claiming thats the reason for their decision, and it makes you look silly to keep bringing it up.

reply to post by Aim64C


I see no mention of foreskin as a vestigial. So your point is bit moot. You're making bs. up.
Also just because there might be some problems later on doens't justify mutilation. If there is no medical reason to circumcise then it's just pure mutilation.

reply to post by sputniksteve


Dont worry about me worrying about babies penises. Also you might want to read the thread topic.

reply to post by PsykoOps

I see no mention of foreskin as a vestigial.

It's a debated issue: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Your pinky is in the same boat. It's not necessary. You can live perfectly fine without it (actually - you can live perfectly fine with your thumb and two fingers that possess an amount of gripping strength). Doesn't mean it's completely useless or that you should rush out to cut it off. Except if the pinky could be demonstrated to create hygiene and cancer issues...

So your point is bit moot.

Not really. The only real enticing argument against circumcision is the idea that you may be somehow dulling a person's future sex life. Though demonstrating that with some kind of evidence aside from "it has more nerve endings" (your tongue has a lot of nerve endings and can only distinguish between four sensations) is a little difficult.

The rest are mostly moot.

If I make the decision to not circumcise my children - it would be because I wouldn't want to dull that experience for them... of course - I know quite a few girls who are not too keen on uncircumcised guys (though I suppose that means she's not worth sleeping with, anyway - same goes for if she only wants 'uncut' guys).

Because that's something I can't quantify. Risk, cost, statistics - those can be quantified and calculated. It's the subjective stuff that makes it a difficult decision.

But, that said - I wouldn't hesitate to have my child genetically modified to remove a flawed gene sequence or to reduce the risk of vision/hearing problems (if such problems are genetic as opposed to gestative). So it's odd I should walk the fence on a similar decision.

Also just because there might be some problems later on doens't justify mutilation. If there is no medical reason to circumcise then it's just pure mutilation.

You really like your buzz words.

Call a rose garbage if you want. It doesn't change what it is. As it's commonly practiced in modern societies; it's a sterile procedure done to minimize damage to surrounding tissues and promote healing.

If you call that mutilation - then so be it. Just remember that any time you go on the table and I give you # by acting shocked and horrified that you allowed people to mutilate you to prevent future problems (such as heart failure, ruptured kidneys, aneurisms, gal/kidney stones, other painful/deadly misfortunes).

I've given you the medical reasons to circumcise. There are considerable immediate factors (risks to infants - such as bladder infections and other complications that are higher among infants with foreskins), and further complications that can arise later (phemosis, cancer, increased viral communicability, hygiene issues in remote locations or adverse conditions, etc).

For example - today, I sweated through my uniform several times over. As fast as I was drinking water - it was flushed through my skin (It's all velvety smooth now... kind of weird and I fear all of my testosterone went with my electrolytes). Standing at guard mount, there was a puddle forming under me. I'm lucky - I'm on a good deployment where I have access to a shower after 16 hour effective work cycles.

Quite a few people in parts of Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa don't. Showering is something of a luxury and often weighed against other responsibilities (such as eating, sleeping, 3M, and sanity-preserving "me-time"). It's an extra concern. People who go camping, hiking, or participate in other out-door activities can encounter the same issues.

It's an extra factor to take care of - and one of the strongest reasons for circumcision in the first place (especially among the largely nomadic tribes that spawned the Abrahamic religions).

We can argue over whether or not that's a legitimate reason until the sun goes nova. It's a choice that can really only be decided by individuals under the council of medical professionals.

Arguably - the largest reason is social pressures: "will my kid be seen as a freak for having a foreskin or not having one?"

Honestly - I don't care. Your camp of thought, however, seems to like making ad-hominem attacks against individuals who are circumcised in an effort to manipulate the sociological aspect: "I don't want my kid to be considered a freak!"

That turns the issue of circumcision into a cosmetic issue. Infinitely better than a religious one. Genetically enabled flavored smegma and glow in the dark members to follow.

Originally posted by SyphonX
I forgot where I found it, but I once read an interesting correlation between circumcision, aggression and the military. Some ancient armies were forced into circumcision, with the worn-out excuse for "health" reasons. Anyway the article postulated that it was to make the men more aggressive, because they received less pleasure from their member, and it engrained in them a practice of having their manhood "branded" and themselves essentially "owned".

I think it's interesting, that of the countries that have "enforced" circumcision, most of them contain the most warring, violent men in modern times. Namely, America, and the Middle-East.

Estimates of the proportion of males that are circumcised worldwide vary from one-sixth[2] to a third,[3] and it is commonly practiced between infancy and the early twenties.[88] The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim.[88] Circumcision is most prevalent in the Muslim world, parts of Southeast Asia, Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea.

Source: Wikipedia

I think it's rather interesting. . .

edit on 8-7-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

wow, you know I've been thinking of starting a thread on this very idea, that circumcision and violence seem to correlate.

Israel and the US, both voted first and second most significant threats to world peace in many polls, both have really high circ rates. Middle East too - now there's something in this.

My personal opinion is that the learned helplessness of newborns that are held down and tortured, expresses as violent rage as an adult.

Just an opinion