gamavor Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 (edited) There are plenty of people walking around with parts of their body that are even more useless - eyes, ears, tongues, even whole brains - so lets get snipping. Exactement! Edited August 13, 2004 by gamavor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 It is not useless. It keeps the nerves in that area alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 It is not useless. It keeps the nerves in that area alive. Not to mention that without a foreskin it's a 30% reduction of pleasure during intercourse! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Not to mention that without a foreskin it's a 30% reduction of pleasure during intercourse! The important issue however is what are some of the implications that come with that reduction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Not to mention that without a foreskin it's a 30% reduction of pleasure during intercourse! It has to be more than that, I'm guessing though. I mean if foreskin was unnatural would we be born with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 The important issue however is what are some of the implications that come with that reduction? There are NONE. Like I said, take a shower. There is no valid argument that suggests that circumcision is nothing more than a sadistic ritual. If people are worried about finishing off a bit early than that has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with experience. So unless you're 16 there's nothing to worry about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 There are NONE. There are. It brings to shifts in sexual desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 There are. It brings to shifts in sexual desire. Is that so? I really would like to see some proof of that. If anything I believe it enhances the sensation, it would only make sense, otherwise why would the equipment rise to the occasion with a special function that pulls the layer back to reveal the sensor? Please provide me with some proof that supports your claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Can I summarize this topic with few words? Circumcised men are missing something that they can never have back. They are missing much more in terms of sensuality that they can never regain. I feel pity about them and I wish that parents who are going to subject their kids to this truly barbaric ritual should think twice. Circumcision is alien to our culture and civilization. Believe me, if it was something good we would have been among the first to implement it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted August 13, 2004 Report Share Posted August 13, 2004 Can I summarize this topic with few words? Circumcised men are missing something that they can never have back. They are missing much more in terms of sensuality that they can never regain. I feel pity about them and I wish that parents who are going to subject their kids to this truly barbaric ritual should think twice. Circumcision is alien to our culture and civilization. Believe me, if it was something good we would have been among the first to implement it. I agree Both my sons are natural including me.I did fine and doing fine so why change what was to begin with.I don't know how it feels to be bold but why mess with the equipment so important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skhara Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Can I summarize this topic with few words? Circumcised men are missing something that they can never have back. They are missing much more in terms of sensuality that they can never regain. I feel pity about them and I wish that parents who are going to subject their kids to this truly barbaric ritual should think twice. Circumcision is alien to our culture and civilization. Believe me, if it was something good we would have been among the first to implement it. There is a reason why Jews and Muslims practice child mutilation. Brutal religions --> Brutal practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Welcome to the Forum Skhara! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Welcome Shkara, are you Georgian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Is that so? I really would like to see some proof of that. If anything I believe it enhances the sensation, it would only make sense, otherwise why would the equipment rise to the occasion with a special function that pulls the layer back to reveal the sensor? Please provide me with some proof that supports your claim. Well, basically its like...if we would rub a human being's tongue with a piece of cloth for 20 years or so his eating habits and preferences would change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skhara Posted August 14, 2004 Report Share Posted August 14, 2004 Welcome to the Forum Skhara! Welcome Skhara, are you Georgian? Thank you for the Welcomes! No TK, I'm not Georgian, I'm Armenian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakersfieldian Posted August 16, 2004 Report Share Posted August 16, 2004 Practically all of the American born from "Baby Boomers" on are circumcised (same here). When my first son was born, I told my parents that I was not interested in partaking in any Jewish rituals of genital mutilation when it comes to my kids. My mother was horrified! Too damn bad. Neither of my sons got whacked despite horrified complaints from both of our parents. I'm non-negotiable on this issue and yes, all who are in favor of such bizarre mutilation are indeed 100% wrong. Just say NO to peepee whacking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Ok, I still don’t understand how the ritual is barbaric. Once the process is over it hardly causes discomfort or disability. Now I don’t know if anyone has read what I wrote, but circumcision is not only prevalent to Jews or Muslims, but to Christians, Catholics and other religions, as well as various ethnicities. It was practiced in Europe until I believe WWII, it’s no secret why this practice became unpopular during that time. Also it is still practiced in South Korea. Once again originally it was introduced by the Egyptians, which were far more advanced and civilized than other cultures at the time. Foreskin is what would be considered as excess skin, as I’ve pointed out before, it is not intended to diminish sexual pleasure or prevent masturbation or impose any sort of hardships or restrictions. It has been invented purely for health reasons. At this time infection is not an issue due to various medications and an abundance of water and soap. A few thousand years ago the sanitary conditions weren’t so, therefore it is not surprising that earlier cultures adopted the ritual. Now in terms of snipping, well don’t we snip our toe-nails, our hair, pierce our body parts, shave our legs and armpits, tweeze our eyebrows, shave our facial hair, enhance our body parts, those “rituals” are far more pointless and at times even "barbaric" compared to the possible hygienic advantages of circumcision. In terms of missing the pleasure that is a complete fallacy, the feeling is all there, and if you ask me it looks a lot neater and wrinkle free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Hair and nails grow back and the cutting of it is painless! This argument has been used way too often! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Hair and nails grow back and the cutting of it is painless! This argument has been used way too often! Actually body hair is something I would rather wish not to grow back. Who says that hair removal is painless, have you forgotten about waxing that so many women subject themselves to? What about all of the rituals which are absolutely pointless but we practice them every day? Besides, it's painless after the process is over, a child doesn't even remember the event or the pain. That's why they usually perform it at an infancy stage. What about cosmetic surgery, I am assuming it is less barbaric and a lot more useful.... oh and definitely less painful... And lets not forget about the various health advantages from breast implants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Eve, circumcision has never been practiced in Europe, except the Albion, if you of course consider them European! Even on the British Islands it was not very popular, - maybe only among certain Scottish merchants who were in close contact with the Jews. Again, this barbaric practice is foreign to our culture. It has never been part of the Armenian culture and will never be, because it is wrong. I can give you thousands of reasons, but if someone believes that humans were conceived in likeness of God, than who gives us the right to alter his beautiful invention? http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/ Circumcision: Legal issues This page indexes legal material relevant to the performance of male circumcision. Documents are indexed in chronological order of publication. Introduction The English-speaking nations share the English language, the common law, and male circumcision as part of their history and culture since the late 19th century. This page incorporates relevant legal reference material from the several English-speaking nations. Some definitions: A "botched" circumcision is one that is poorly done and has obvious unexpected results. "Wrongful circumcision" is circumcision done without valid informed consent. Botched circumcision and wrongful circumcision constitute malpractice. Prior to 1984, circumcision law was included under malpractice law: Doctors who "botched" circumcisions could only be sued for failing to adhere to the "standard of care."3,4,5 There were, however, a number of circumcision malpractice cases that succeeded on these grounds. Starting in 1984, academics began to apply general principles of health care law and medical ethics to examine the legality of male circumcision. Children are legally regarded as incompetent persons who are unable to give consent. These principles imply that circumcision of male children (or any other operation done under proxy consent), when unnecessary and performed for other than express therapeutic purposes, may not be legal regardless of the standard of care. There are no valid medical indications for male circumcision in the neonatal period; * therefore routine male neonatal circumcision constitutes a non-therapeutic procedure — and now the American Medical Association has identified male neonatal circumcision as a non-therapeutic procedure in its policy statement. All persons enjoy a general right to bodily integrity. This has been true from at least as far back as the time of Blackstone; it has been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891), and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision removes healthy functional tissue and is viewed by many as an infringement upon the right to bodily integrity. Somerville discussed the legal distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic procedures and between operations on competent and incompetent people in a 1980 paper. William E. Brigman used new medical evidence to argue that circumcision is child abuse, and discussed possible legal remedies.8 Recent medical articles have documented the actual injury of circumcision, making it possible for a knowledgable attorney to win damages for wrongful circumcision. Recent legal commentary in the several nations has pointed out numerous legal problems with the practice of circumcision of male children in general, even when done with parental consent and not botched. There is increasing concern that (forcible) child circumcision is a violation of numerous provisions of international human rights law.17,18,23 Legal writers in the several English-speaking nations have been expressing concern in law review articles.6,7,8,9,23,24,25,26,27 Interpreting the legal status of circumcision objectively is difficult, owing to the cultural background and long history of the practice. A 1961 New York case (Kalina vs General Hospital of the City of Syracuse (100 NYS2d 226, 18 A.D.2d 757 (1962)) classifies circumcision as an assault; furthermore, it finds that the assaulted child has a right of recovery.2,3,5 A 1980s California case questioned the power of parents in California to consent to surgical procedures (in this case male circumcision) which had no medical purpose.10 Exceptionally, California statute law allows parents to consent to surgical procedures "regardless of purpose." The right of parents in that state to consent to male circumcision was upheld by the appellate court on that narrow ground while ignoring other applicable law. The California Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Apparently, the courts were not yet ready to address the issue. A case on circumcision (Re "J") has been decided in the United Kingdom. The court determined that circumcision is not in the best interest of the child concerned. Lynn E. Lebit, in a 1992 article,11 stressed the need for courts to protect the rights of minors and other legally incompetent persons. The power of parental proxy consent is much more limited than that of adult personal consent. There has been a general trend in society and in the courts to accord more recognition to the rights of minors, rights that exist independently of their parents.11,14 It is not at all clear that parental consent to the removal of healthy functional tissue from the body of an incompetent minor child is valid: If parental proxy consent to non-therapeutic circumcision of minor children were to be found to be invalid or vitiated, then almost all circumcisions of minor children are wrongful circumcisions. The Law Reform Commission of Queensland (Australia) published a research paper on the lawfulness of male circumcision in 1993. 12 The paper cited the Australian High Court case of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218 and concluded that male circumcision was unlawful; but failed to propose further action which would enforce the rights of children. Solicitor Christopher P. Price, M.A., prepared a significant brief for the Law Commission of England and Wales17. A condensed version was later published by the Bulletin of Medical Ethics.18 In 1997, Margaret A. Somerville, founder and director of the McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montréal, characterized male circumcision as "technically criminal assault" under the Canadian criminal code. Chessler published a major review of the circumcision issues in the Buffalo Law Review.24 Povenmire argues that any parental rights should be subordinated to the child's right to bodily integrity; a court order should be required before the forcible circumcision of a child is allowed.25 Smith of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights has published a report on the human rights violations inherent in neonatal male circumcision.26 Two papers that were published in early 1999 are relevant, in that they challenge the validity of parental consent and the lawfulness of male neonatal circumcision as it is customarily performed in the United States and several other English-speaking nations.27,29: Price elaborated the distinctions between therapeutic and non-therapeutic procedures.29 Van Howe, Svoboda, Dwyer, and Price maintain that parents do not have the right to consent to the removal of healthy, functional tissue from a healthy child, and therefore, physicians who continue to perform circumcisions, not only are in violation of law, but undertake appreciable legal risks as all neonatal non-therapeutic circumcisions are unconsented injuries.27 The American Academy of Pediatrics, in a recent circumcision policy statement, declared circumcision to be non-essential to child health; male circumcision must now be viewed in an entirely different light legally from that of an essential and necessary procedure. Boyle, Svoboda, Price, and Turner argue that non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy boys is criminal assault, and that legal action is needed to protect boys from this kind of assault.33 The American Medical Association has issued a statement on neonatal circumcision in which it defines neonatal male circumcision as a non-therapeutic procedure Hodges reports on the legal protection given to the prepuce in the ancient world.37 Martin comments on changing standards regarding informed consent in cases of intersexed children. Her comments also appear to be applicable to informed consent for circumcision.38 As of this writing, however, no court in any jurisdiction (to our knowledge) has considered forcible involuntary male circumcision to fall under existing laws against assault. This means that, for the moment, the legality of male circumcision is in a gray area. This situation seems destined to change as lawyers who are interested in the welfare of children are increasingly concerned about the lack of resolution of the legal status of male child circumcision. Recently, an 18-year-old man brought a lawsuit in New York against the doctor who neonatally circumcised him and the hospital in which the circumcision was carried out. --George Hill State Medical Boards Persons who believe a medical doctor has been negligent, or otherwise has behaved improperly or in an unethical fashion in relation to the circumcision of male infants, may wish to file a suit against a medical doctor and/or a hospital, especially if a person has been seriously injured. If this is the case, one should consult appropriate knowledgeable legal counsel. If the complaint does not involve an actual injury, persons may wish to report the behavior to the appropriate medical licensing board for appropriate disciplinary action. The regulation of medical practice is a function of state government in the USA. The Federation of State Medical Boards, a federation of 69 member boards, maintains a website with a listing of the addresses of the various state medical boards. Doctors who behave in an unethical or unlawful fashion should be reported to the appropriate state board for disciplinary action. This is for the benefit of the medical profession and the protection of the public. These actions may also be the subject of litigation especially if the malpractice results in personal injury. One should consult appropriate knowledgable counsel. In the case of male circumcision, such actions as Provision of false medical information to the public solicitation for surgery promotion of unnecessary circumcision use of coercion to obtain consent failure to provide complete and accurate informed consent, failure to provide information on conservative alternatives to male circumcision including no circumcision, performance of circumcision without consent, failure to use appropriate analgesia, delegation of the practice of medicine to an unlicensed individual, and negligent performance of circumcision which results in a botched circumcision are examples of misbehavior which should be reported to the appropriate state board. Intact boys are frequently the subject of maltreatment by ill-trained physicians. Premature forcible retraction of the foreskin is injurious to the boy and is contraindicated. It is actionable malpractice. It should also be reported to the State Medical Board. Information for the United Kingdom The General Medical Council receives complaints and regulates the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom. Complaints should be sent to: General Medical Council 178-202 Great Portland Street LONDON W1N 6JE Tel 0171 580 7642 Fax 0171 915 3641 More here:http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/nicoll/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1572483.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 anileve, do you have the same opinion about female circumcision? If you ask me it looks a lot neater and wrinkle free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Carrots and thorns my dear, I hope you realize the ridiculousness of the comparison. Gamavor jan, besides "practices gone wrong" and legal issues I still haven't received a valid argument as to why the ritual is barbaric, or at least more barbaric than the popular cosmetic "butchery". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 Well, let's say it is not barbaric. But what is its necessity if we're in a civilized world? Only the wrincles? Well I say let those who have wrincles be circumstized! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anileve Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 First of all I am not advocating that everyone should undergo circumcision… I am simply stating that before claiming that the ritual is barbaric and turning into Jewphobes who make false assessments regarding the origin of the ritual, it’s good to do some research and understand the origin. Also to negate something because it is associated with the practices of a disliked culture makes one an ignorant hatemonger with a mixed up understanding of values. Please read about the benefits of the circumcision below. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/PR/00040.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted August 17, 2004 Report Share Posted August 17, 2004 I agree with that. However, I fail to see the advantage of circumstizion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.