Circumsized or uncircumsized?

let's repeat:

would not want it done to self if not done at birth

would not do it to babies past birth

It seems to be in order.

 

Yes, you were quite clear the first time.

You would do things to babies, that you are too much of a coward to do to yourself as an adult...

 

Well yes basically, it's not pragmatic, there's no need for it at that point.

considering though one of my long term goals is to surgically reverse my penis so it's a vagina instead which makes circumcision look like a paper cut in both pain and procedure I think I have balls of steel. This has very pragmatic use to me. Being circumcised at 18 has no point and is just paying for useless pain, I'd be pretty damn use to my dick by then and they work fine both ways.

 

Even ignoring the fact that what you said makes no sense from a language point of view... What you are saying is that because you are deciding to cut it off anyway, what happened to it at birth really doesn't matter?


That is all 100% totally irrellevent to the conversation at hand. which is, that you would take a knife and cut a baby (or send someone else to do it), whom not only has no chance of defending themself, but doesnt even have the ability to say, please don't cut that off.

No matter what you want to do with your penis now, that is still a cowardly act. You are mutilating a baby for fuck sake... why a baby, because they CAN"T say no.

Once a person is an adult, they can say they want to be circumcised or gender modified or even gender nuetralized for all I care, because that would be THEIR choice.

A new born baby is the most defenseless creature in the world, and you are advocating mutilation of it...

But hey, I'm done with this thread, there is nothing new I can say on this subject...

 

Parents do what's best for their children, they may see circumcision at that. That's about all I can do to sum up this article.

*edit*

as another metaphor, being cut at 20 is like getting a random tattoo at 65, it just has no damn point by that time.

 

I'm so sorry. That's ANOTHER reason to leave a baby intact.

The foreskin your family threw away had more pleasure receptive nerve endings and pathways than all the genital tissue you have left, and would have made for a vastly superior M2F result.

Good Luck,
-Ron

 

i'm cut. and i am happy with that. because, i can get more pleasure by having it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEOiehukK_w"]YouTube- Top 5 Reasons to Circumcise Your Daughters

 

The mutilated penis doesn't "work fine." I know this first hand, because I happen to be the owner of one. We'd like to believe that it "works fine" because we're on an ego trip. It definitely works, but does it "work just fine?" No. I never really enjoyed it all that much, even as a teenager. There was never a whole lot of feeling. I've been to quite a few of locker rooms in my time, so I can attest to the fact that my own mutilation is fairly typical. I just can't believe that others with the same severity can enjoy sex any better than I can. But if you listen to them talk about their sex lives, you'll hear nothing but bragging. What a bunch of #%$*&@$& LIARS !

 

You're funny, you don't have great sex so no one does.

 

this procedure (Circumcision) is wrong in so many ways.
first reason: babies don get any anesthesia or pain killers.
doctors reasons for this "they wont remember the pain" this quote is from a pediatric surgeon i confronted. and anesthesia and or pain killers are to dangerous for infants.
second reason: according to us law children under 18 have limited medical rights. and any choice they make can be overturned by the parent. this means that parents can force there children to undergo any surgery the doctor might recommend.
third reason: the amount of pain (physical and mental) is incredible. my parents decided to wait until i was 2 or 3. ever since i have been plagued with nightmares.20 years of nightmares so far. i was awake through the procedure.
forth reason: there is no i repeat no proven medical benefit from this procedure. when i was able to pry my medical records from my doctor. no reason was listed for why this procedure was preformed on me.
fitth reason: this procedure is pureley cosmetic. the reason my parents gave me was "so you would me normal". what is normal? i dont want to be the same as everone else. why couldent i be left natral?

thank you for reading please replay

 

Except

They do give babies anesthesia now

Most of the world that does circumcise actually does it between ages 6-12 as a rite of passage ceremony and those men seem to lead normal lives.

And there are medical benefits to circumcision whether you like it or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Potential_benefits

 

i never said that they did not give babies circumcision. i said babies don't get anesthesia and or pain killers

 

I'm not mutilated; nor would I ever subject another human being to it until they were an adult and able to choose if they wanted to remove some of their penis for some murky reason.

All the 'benefits' I see posted ad infinitum seem to be the sorts of things you have to worry about if you stay away from showers and overall live a disgusting sort of life. In which case, being snipped probably won't save you from cock-cooties anyway.

It's a pretty barbaric process; and it's really amazing how many people still put their children through it.

 

My bad, they give babies anesthesia now

 

<< "While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes.">> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...fit-virtually-nil-study-finds/article1427972/

 

And there are numerous studies that contradict that one, go back to Jewish conspiracies, you're better at that

 

Lots of fraudulent studies were fabricated over the years by vested interests, in an effort to hoodwink the parents of newborn infants into turning over their children for the ancient "black art" ritual of sexual mutilation. But in science, the simple existence of a "study" is never swallowed whole, and should never be taken as "gospel" from Mount Sinai. In science, a study is always a tentative thing at best, and is accepted with a jaundiced eye ... but ONLY until better information comes along ... and this applies ESPECIALLY to "advocacy studies" which purport to establish the alleged health benefits of money-making surgical procedures. In such case(s), the "study" in question will only provide "fodder" for the creation of even MORE studies. In other words, a "study" of this nature will only generate many successive studies, and what usually happens, invariably, is that these later studies usually go on to debunk the original study or studies. That's how science works ! Science is basically a self-correcting process, and the history of science is littered with the dead carcasses of numerous debunked studies. Alas ! such is the now case with all of those now-discredited circumcision studies. Wiswell and his infamous UTI study (just to cite one glaring example) have now been relegated to their rightful place in the trash bin of science and medicine, along with the art of phrenology and the theory of phlogiston, and along with a host of related quackery.

 

Obviously your study is not fraudulent because you obviously have no agenda to push.

 

- Circumcision has its roots in both religion and in fraudulent pseudo-science.

- Circumcision is patently absurd on its face, even without the addition of "scientific studies" to help in the debunking of the practice.

I really don't need any "scientific studies" to support my position, but I will confess that it's always nice to point out the existence of numerous scientific studies - studies which effectively "neutralize" all of the rubbish that emanates from the shysters who promote this nonsense.