for the ladies- circumcision

Put $100 into an account and let him decide when he gets older.

 

If my son decides to surgically alter his body, I'm sure as hell not paying for it, whether it's pec implants or lipo or circumcision.

I don't get the idea that we need to encourage him to decide whether or not to have surgery later. We don't put aside money just in case our daughters decide they want breast implants or vaginoplasty. We don't bring it up to them as an option. If they are unhappy with their bodies and want to change something, they will. It's not something we need to bring up, pay for, or encourage. If they are adults and making informed decisions, all we need to do is support them and love them.

 

So, by not deciding, you've actually decided by default to give the kid an uncut weenis.
That's okay. Probably best. But, I still see it as your decision.

 

Deciding not to cover their body in swastika tattoos at birth is making a default decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives on their behalf as well.

You might consider that as a bit more of an extreme example, but is it?

Both tattoos & circumcision are procedures that mutilate the body for life.
The differences are that (a) There is a legal age limit on when anyone can be tattooed (at least there is in the UK - 18 years), and (b) Tattoos can often be removed via laser surgery, although it will still leave a scar.

I believe that legislation should be passed for an age of consent for Circumcision, such as 16 or 18, in the same way as is required for tattoos, except when medical reasons, such as phimosis demand it, of course.

 

If that is considered "normal" in the prevailing culture to be covered with swastikas, then maybe it's the same.

But that's just intellectual masturbation. I'm on board with leaving things natural. I think circumcision is unbelievably cruel. It's kind of sick, really. Here the little guy is, perfectly happy with his new surrounds, then AHHH! his pecker is on fire. And for what? It isn't cruel if it's tradition? Strange.

 

Is this crappy dumb post still alive?

Circumcision is stupid, cruel, and results in dysfunctional and crusty cocks that transmit more diseases, like HIV.

Now let's leave it at this, shall we? Else go whine at the "I've been cut against my will and I'm still not over it"-forum.

 

I've only been with one uncut man and I'm not able to tell the difference through sex. It doesn't look much different from a cut man unless you pay close attention. I know some do, but his doesn't, so I really just don't care until I have more experience to prove me otherwise.

 

Cutted, I don't really care whether someone is circumsized or not...but after reading this post, johnschlong gave a waaaaaaaay better argument than you. If you're so passionate about it you should try maybe using sources and citing actual examples instead of just telling people they're wrong, emotional, or John McCain. After reading this, I would never circumcize my son (if I ever had one)...but even before that I probably wouldn't have...now I just know for sure it's not something I want to happen to my child.

 

ArmOutsideIn - Schlong cited a study in "Nature", calling it a top medical publication - never heard of it. I posted some authoritative information under the thread "New information about circumcision" - check it out. These new studies has been adopted by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, not some obscure Nature magazine.

Schlong uses abusive, emotional arguments when he tries to state his position - than anyone who disagrees with him is a slimy, uneducated piece of crap. He obviously dislikes Americans intensely - probably is a working class Brit, although he won't say - and has lumped Americans with Moslems and Jews as persons who are beneath contempt for him.

Many women could not care less whether their lover is cut or not - it makes little difference in the intensity and enjoyment of their lovemaking. I posted a poll on this, and a majority of these responding stated that they liked the feel of a cut penis inside them better than an uncut one or that it made no difference. The fiction about the "glide" of the foreskin across the glans inside the vagina is something that uncut guys cite, but I bet it is more pleasurable for the male than the female. And the friction of the cut guy's coronal ridge of the glans, its most sensitive part, along the vaginal walls on the outthrust is very pleasurable for both male and female. This friction is missing if the foreskin glides back over the glans on the outthrust.

Neonatal circumcision is not the barbaric custom Schlong states it to be. Local anaesthetic is regularly used, so there is no pain, and the trauma of circumcision for the boy is far less than that of childbirth a few days earlier. And humans have been altering their physical appearance in many ways since the dawn of man - ear and other piercings, plastic surgery, taking out tonsils, shaving heads or coloring hair, etc. Circumcision is just another way of altering one's appearance, and it does have medical benefits - less chance of urinary tract infections, getting STDs and HIV, etc. And it is cleaner - no smegma collecting under the foreskin in the unwashed guy.

I realize that guys like Schlong will never be convinced that I am right, and I expect an abusive response to this post from him, pounding the table rather than making a rational argument.

 

i wonder what cutted's story is. i wonder if he just haunts hipforums spreading the "joys of circumcision", or if he haunts others as well. why on earth would somebody spend so much time and energy promoting circumcision. perhaps he's actually a fulltime employee of an industry that uses foreskins to produce products. it's a mystery. i think maybe a better screen name would be 'whacked'.