1. Post #81
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Context is everything. I don't know what it's like to have foreskin because I never experienced it, nor was I traumatically affected by the event. But someone who is raped? That's a turning point emotionally and physically. I just don't see how rape is comparable to genital mutilation.
    Most victims of date-rape neither remember the experience nor even realize that they had been raped.

    Does that make it not-rape?

    You're implying that something is only a crime if the victim realizes they have been assailed. That is simply untrue.

  2. Post #82
    Gold Member
    Funky Pickle's Avatar
    August 2009
    4,328 Posts
    Christianity, bro.

    Especially Catholicism.

    All of the abrahamic religions promote male circumcision. Some sects of each also partake in female circumcision.
    The Roman Catholic Church is currently neutral on the subject. Previously, however, they denounced it.

  3. Post #83
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.

  4. Post #84
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.
    [citation needed]

  5. Post #85
    froztshock's Avatar
    August 2009
    2,851 Posts
    Really? Because the charges for genital mutilation are strangely similar to the charges for rape. Generally because it is considered pseudo-rape when inflicted upon people who are not infants.

    Edited:

    Can you tell me the difference between mutilating a newborn's genitals and mutilating a ten-year-old's genitals?
    Am I the only one that gets pissed off about the sensationalism of calling circumcision genital mutilation? Let me say up front that I agree that the tradition of infant circumcision should end. The parent shouldn't have that kind of control over the body of a child that cannot make the decision for himself. Any logical examination of the ethics of the debate should bring a person to that conclusion. But it's like uncircumcised people think that masturbation is practically impossible or difficult for circumcised people, or that sex doesn't feel good. I believe that in the last thread about this there was even someone who was insisting that circumcised people couldn't masturbate without lube? Now I'm not saying that mutilate isn't technically an acceptable word to refer to the process, but it carries such a loaded connotation, and doesn't really have a place in rational debate. And rational debate is what this section is for, isn't it?

    genital mutilation is comparable to other sexual abuses, no matter how culturally accepted it is.

    Do think think the tradition of female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) isn't harmful?

    Edited:

    Also please don't say the foreskin serves no purpose or that it's medically necessary to remove it. That has already been addressed.
    And I know that last page you said that you weren't saying that female circumcision was equal to male circumcision, but here you go again with a post that seems to imply that it is. It really, really isn't. A procedure that almost entirely removes the ability of a woman to feel pleasure is hardly comparable to male circumcision, in which only an apparently slight drop in sensitivity is recorded to occur. It's like putting vasectomy or removal of the penis or scrotum entirely next to male circumcision.

    And the assertion that the prevalence of circumcision in America is due to religious reasons is incorrect, and a myth. Though male circumcision is present in Abrahamic religion, it was the misinformed medical belief that circumcised penises were less likely to spread venereal disease that led to both British and American armies during world war 1 and 2 circumcising soldiers. The circumcision of the soldiers led to their children being circumcised, both them and their doctors believing that it had beneficial effects. The main reason for the eventual divergence between American and British circumcision rates after world war 2 was the incredibly high availability of health insurance in America that was willing to pay for a procedure that, although seen as beneficial at the time, was unnecessary. After that it just got stuck in the culture and now most men in the US are circumcised.

    It's going to make its way out eventually though, even if slowly. Those who bother to do the research into it will see that it's unnecessary and overall detrimental, and the number of circumcisions will decline. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we ended up with a small minority of conservatives desperately rallying against a law making male circumcision illegal someday after most of moderate society has passed them by.

  6. Post #86
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    [citation needed]
    you want me to prove that most cocks in america are circumcised

    it's not as though that's the fucking premise of this thread.

  7. Post #87
    Azaer's Avatar
    November 2010
    571 Posts
    I don't think circumcision is a big deal, but it really should be the kids choice. Even in Amish communities parents allow their children the choice whether or not to abandon their culture and the culture is all the stronger for it. I.E. when its the kids choice to follow tradition it means a whole lot more so why not let the kid decide. Circumcision is no different.

    you want me to prove that most cocks in america are circumcised

    it's not as though that's the fucking premise of this thread.
    ...Wouldn't that mean it should be proven even more?

    I mean, I don't dispute the claim, but its poor debating to brush that aside.

  8. Post #88
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Am I the only one that gets pissed off about the sensationalism of calling circumcision genital mutilation? Let me say up front that I agree that the tradition of infant circumcision should end. The parent shouldn't have that kind of control over the body of a child that cannot make the decision for himself. Any logical examination of the ethics of the debate should bring a person to that conclusion. But it's like uncircumcised people think that masturbation is practically impossible or difficult for circumcised people, or that sex doesn't feel good. I believe that in the last thread about this there was even someone who was insisting that circumcised people couldn't masturbate without lube? Now I'm not saying that mutilate isn't technically an acceptable word to refer to the process, but it carries such a loaded connotation, and doesn't really have a place in rational debate. And rational debate is what this section is for, isn't it?



    And I know that last page you said that you weren't saying that female circumcision was equal to male circumcision, but here you go again with a post that seems to imply that it is. It really, really isn't. A procedure that almost entirely removes the ability of a woman to feel pleasure is hardly comparable to male circumcision, in which only an apparently slight drop in sensitivity is recorded to occur. It's like putting vasectomy or removal of the penis or scrotum entirely next to male circumcision.

    And the assertion that the prevalence of circumcision in America is due to religious reasons is incorrect, and a myth. Though male circumcision is present in Abrahamic religion, it was the misinformed medical belief that circumcised penises were less likely to spread venereal disease that led to both British and American armies during world war 1 and 2 circumcising soldiers. The circumcision of the soldiers led to their children being circumcised, both them and their doctors believing that it had beneficial effects. The main reason for the eventual divergence between American and British circumcision rates after world war 2 was the incredibly high availability of health insurance in America that was willing to pay for a procedure that, although seen as beneficial at the time, was unnecessary. After that it just got stuck in the culture and now most men in the US are circumcised.

    It's going to make its way out eventually though, even if slowly. Those who bother to do the research into it will see that it's unnecessary and overall detrimental, and the number of circumcisions will decline. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we ended up with a small minority of conservatives desperately rallying against a law making male circumcision illegal someday after most of moderate society has passed them by.
    But the fact remains that it IS harmful, regardless of its extent.

    Edited:

    I don't think circumcision is a big deal, but it really should be the kids choice. Even in Amish communities parents allow their children the choice whether or not to abandon their culture and the culture is all the stronger for it. I.E. when its the kids choice to follow tradition it means a whole lot more so why not let the kid decide. Circumcision is no different.



    ...Wouldn't that mean it should be proven even more?

    I mean, I don't dispute the claim, but its poor debating to brush that aside.
    It's like asking for proof that most people in the American south speak in a southern accent. It is ubiquitous to the point of being common knowledge.

  9. Post #89
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    The claim being made was that the Roman Church practitioners still circumcised boys. Could you back that up?

    I'd still like to argue that it doesn't matter what the Roman Church's standing is, it matters what the people's stand is.

  10. Post #90
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    The claim being made was that the Roman Church practitioners still circumcised boys. Could you back that up?

    I'd still like to argue that it doesn't matter what the Roman Church's standing is, it matters what the people's stand is.
    There are roughly 66.5 million practicing catholics in the United States.

    Unless you think the majority of those people actually gave a shit what the pope said and didn't get snipped, then the religion's practitioners still partake in the ritual.

    Fact is, the majority of men in the US have been circumcised, and the most populous religion in the US is catholicism. Put two and two together here and you will get four.

    A similar example: The Vatican accepted evolutionary theory as scientific fact quite some time ago. And yet the Catholic League is one of the most prominent lobbying groups against teaching evolution.

    Edited:

    (FYI American catholics don't really give a shit what the Pope says, they sort of do whatever the hell they want)

  11. Post #91
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    (FYI American catholics don't really give a shit what the Pope says, they sort of do whatever the hell they want)
    So then religious precedent doesn't really matter, does it? Because then American catholics, according to you, are not real Roman catholics.

  12. Post #92
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    So then religious precedent doesn't really matter, does it? Because then American catholics, according to you, are not real Roman catholics.
    I didn't say Roman Catholics. You did.

    I said "Catholicism", in the context of a thread about America.

    In fact, if you CTRL+F, this is the first time I have said the word "Roman" in this entire thread.

    Stop trying to argue semantics over things I didn't even say.

  13. Post #93
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    I didn't say Roman Catholics. You did.

    I said "Catholicism", in the context of a thread about America.

    In fact, if you CTRL+F, this is the first time I have said the word "Roman" in this entire thread.

    Stop trying to argue semantics over things I didn't even say.
    Considering you've been using what-ifs and scary buzzwords like mutilation, as well as refusing requests to back things up with empirical evidence, semantics is fair game.

  14. Post #94
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Here let me pick up the US Census dick data

    Edited:

    In the meantime you can go ahead and address the things I actually said.

  15. Post #95
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    Here let me pick up the US Census dick data

    Edited:

    In the meantime you can go ahead and address the things I actually said.
    You've been picking and choosing parts from my posts as well so I'll let you go first

  16. Post #96
    Gold Member
    l337k1ll4's Avatar
    September 2007
    3,994 Posts
    Considering you've been using what-ifs and scary buzzwords like mutilation, as well as refusing requests to back things up with empirical evidence, semantics is fair game.
    Mutilation isn't just a "scary buzzword." It's perfectly apt, they're painfully removing a part of your body that we're supposed to have in the first place without the consent of the person involved, that's by definition mutilation.

  17. Post #97
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    Mutilation isn't just a "scary buzzword." It's perfectly apt, they're painfully removing a part of your body that we're supposed to have in the first place without the consent of the person involved, that's by definition mutilation.
    Am I the only one that gets pissed off about the sensationalism of calling circumcision genital mutilation? Let me say up front that I agree that the tradition of infant circumcision should end. The parent shouldn't have that kind of control over the body of a child that cannot make the decision for himself. Any logical examination of the ethics of the debate should bring a person to that conclusion. But it's like uncircumcised people think that masturbation is practically impossible or difficult for circumcised people, or that sex doesn't feel good. I believe that in the last thread about this there was even someone who was insisting that circumcised people couldn't masturbate without lube? Now I'm not saying that mutilate isn't technically an acceptable word to refer to the process, but it carries such a loaded connotation, and doesn't really have a place in rational debate. And rational debate is what this section is for, isn't it?
    It's a buzzword. The definition is the same but it's still a buzzword. I don't feel like my penis is mutilated.

  18. Post #98
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    It's a buzzword. The definition is the same but it's still a buzzword. I don't feel like my penis is mutilated.
    The definition I feel they're going for is that the penis is mutilated in the sense of a verb, not noun.

  19. Post #99
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    It's a buzzword. The definition is the same but it's still a buzzword. I don't feel like my penis is mutilated.
    Mutilation is the act of mutilating.

    Mutilate

    Noun

    1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>

    2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

    Circumcision is mutilation by definition.

  20. Post #100
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    The definition I feel they're going for is that the penis is mutilated in the sense of a verb, not noun.
    I know, but the penis functions perfectly well, circumcision or not, if the job was done correctly.

    Edited:

    Mutilation is the act of mutilating.

    Mutilate

    Noun

    1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>

    2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

    Circumcision is mutilation by definition.
    And I can still achieve orgasm, urinate and do everything a non-circumcised penis can. That doesn't sound like it's crippled.

    Oh, where's that Census data I was promised?

  21. Post #101
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    I know, but the penis functions perfectly well, circumcision or not, if the job was done correctly.
    No it doesn't.

    It chafes extremely easily without the added give of a foreskin when erect.

    The male cannot accurately gauge how close he is to achieving orgasm

    and the male does not experience the orgasm fully

    Wonder why male orgasms are less pronounced than even the mildest female orgasms?

    Take a wiiiild guess.

    Edited:

    Circumcision was adopted to deter masturbation and premarital sex, for christ's sakes.

  22. Post #102
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    I'd like to remind you all that we're not arguing about circumcision itself, just if it should be up to the parents.

  23. Post #103
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    I'd like to remind you all that we're not arguing about circumcision itself, just if it should be up to the parents.
    The argument of it being harmless is an ancillary point to justifying it as a parent's decision akin to naming.

  24. Post #104
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    No it doesn't.

    It chafes extremely easily without the added give of a foreskin when erect.

    The male cannot accurately gauge how close he is to achieving orgasm

    and the male does not experience the orgasm fully

    Edited:

    Circumcision was adopted to deter masturbation and premarital sex, for christ's sakes.
    Again, I'm not supporting circumcision, I'm just saying that defining circumcision as mutilation is bullshit when I can do everything you have listed, sans for maybe experiencing a "full" orgasm. I'll never know what a "full" orgasm is, but does that mean I'm crippled?

  25. Post #105
    Gold Member
    Fire Kracker's Avatar
    January 2007
    12,129 Posts
    i don't like circumcision the thought of cutting my penis is too painful

  26. Post #106
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    The argument of it being harmless is an ancillary point to justifying it as a parent's decision akin to naming.
    You do know names can be changed right? They're imaginary forms of identification, and don't affect the child's body. You're comparing physical to mental features.

    Even if circumcision was harmless, would it be okay for the parents force the child to have it?

  27. Post #107
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    You do know names can be changed right? They're imaginary forms of identification, and don't affect the child's body. You're comparing physical to mental features.

    Even if circumcision was harmless, would it be okay for the parents force the child to have it?
    Yes this was discussed on page 1.

  28. Post #108
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    We already came to a consensus that the parents don't (or shouldn't) have the right to do so. The discussion has since moved on.

  29. Post #109
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Oh. Well then I'm out.

  30. Post #110
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.
    Not as much Catholics. It's actually more a protestant thing. In Latin America(which is heavily Catholic), circumcision isn't nearly as common. However, in the United States(where different Protestant faiths are more popular) circumcision is a lot more common.

    I think it might have to do with the Catholic Church wanting to move away from Judaism a bit, while the more Puritan and Protestant influences in the Americas may have wanted to keep themselves close to the Old Testament and practice the traditions outlined therein. But I'm no colonial scholar.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...atholic_Church
    "Historically, the Roman Catholic Church denounced religious circumcision for its members in the Cantate Domino, written during the 11th Council of Florence in 1442.[28] This decision was based on the belief that baptism had superseded circumcision (Col 2:11-12),[29] and may also have been a response to Coptic Christians, who continued to practice circumcision.[citation needed] The modern Roman Catholic Church maintains a neutral position on the practice of non-religious circumcision, and has never addressed the issue of infant circumcision specifically."

    "The Church of Antioch sent Barnabas on a mission with Paul, which became known as the Apostle's first missionary journey . . . Together with Paul, he then went to the so-called Council of Jerusalem where after a profound examination of the question, the Apostles with the Elders decided to discontinue the practice of circumcision so that it was no longer a feature of the Christian identity (cf. Acts 15: 1-35). It was only in this way that, in the end, they officially made possible the Church of the Gentiles, a Church without circumcision; we are children of Abraham simply through faith in Christ."

  31. Post #111
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    Again, we already established that there is a disparity between American Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.

    The Vatican accepted evolution long ago. And yet, the Catholic League is one of the foremost anti-evolution lobbies in the US.

  32. Post #112
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Again, we already established that there is a disparity between American Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.

    The Vatican accepted evolution long ago. And yet, the Catholic League is one of the foremost anti-evolution lobbies in the US.
    You can't be "American Catholic". You either answer to the Pope and the Vatican, or you aren't a Catholic.

    By the way, the Catholic League is not a religious authority. They are literally an advocacy/civil rights group for Roman Catholics. It doesn't matter what they say, they do not write any rules.

    ANYWAYS Catholicism only makes up ~22% of the population, which is a whole lot less than the amount of circumcisions, so it is more than just Catholics getting circumcisions. It's also not just a religious ceremony, but a cultural ceremony. It's so ingrained in our culture that even the less religious get them just because.

  33. Post #113
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    You're arguing dogma about a religion that doesn't even understand its own dogma.

    And 22% is the largest religious group in the entire nation.

  34. Post #114
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    You're arguing dogma about a religion that doesn't even understand its own dogma.

    And 22% is the largest religious group in the entire nation.
    The largest single denomination in the nation. If you apply the broader term of Protestantism and include Baptists, Lutherans, and a bunch of others together, you get a group far larger than Catholics. This is important because different Protestant faiths have more in common with each other than they do with Catholics.

    In fact, Wikipedia groups them together as well.


  35. Post #115

  36. Post #116
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,547 Posts
    This thread pops up once every couple of months and it is one of the only threads on facepunch I can honestly say I hate. The issue being debated isn't some super prevalent issue, it will not advance the human race somehow by it's decision. It always turns into those less comfortable with their self image attacking others uncomfortable with theirs on a personal level, and does absolutely nothing to further any kind of advancement.

    Also, it's completely opinionated and is not something that can be solved by purely scientific debate.

  37. Post #117
    gay mexican
    Lankist's Avatar
    July 2006
    14,576 Posts
    This thread pops up once every couple of months and it is one of the only threads on facepunch I can honestly say I hate. The issue being debated isn't some super prevalent issue, it will not advance the human race somehow by it's decision. It always turns into those less comfortable with their self image attacking others uncomfortable with theirs on a personal level, and does absolutely nothing to further any kind of advancement.

    Also, it's completely opinionated and is not something that can be solved by purely scientific debate.
    Uhh there is no debate here.

    We reached a consensus on this days ago. Circumcision should be the choice of the recipient, not the parents.

    We're just chatting at this point.

  38. Post #118
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,904 Posts
    This thread pops up once every couple of months and it is one of the only threads on facepunch I can honestly say I hate. The issue being debated isn't some super prevalent issue, it will not advance the human race somehow by it's decision. It always turns into those less comfortable with their self image attacking others uncomfortable with theirs on a personal level, and does absolutely nothing to further any kind of advancement.

    Also, it's completely opinionated and is not something that can be solved by purely scientific debate.
    I just don't like the mutilation argument. It implies crippling, and there are plenty of people I know who are circumcised that perform (supposedly) fine sexually. I find it's probably more of an aesthetic thing, and those who are circumcised prefer the appearance circumcised penises, and same for uncircumcised. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the effects of circumcision are blown out of proportion, since if it was really "mutilation" in the worst sense of the word we would have stopped a long time ago.

    Either way I won't subject my kid to it, and I'm sure it will die out in time.

  39. Post #119
    I bought this title for 1 dollar
    titopei's Avatar
    April 2009
    8,507 Posts
    You realize you get put under anesthesia and you're given painkillers when you undergo an adult circumcision, right?

    With children, it's just snip-snip cry. Not even any local anesthesia, if I recall.
    I know about that, I'm talking about post operation. My friend described it as a week of hell.

  40. Post #120
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,547 Posts
    I just don't like the mutilation argument. It implies crippling, and there are plenty of people I know who are circumcised that perform (supposedly) fine sexually. I find it's probably more of an aesthetic thing, and those who are circumcised prefer the appearance circumcised penises, and same for uncircumcised. I wouldn't doubt for a second that the effects of circumcision are blown out of proportion, since if it was really "mutilation" in the worst sense of the word we would have stopped a long time ago.

    Either way I won't subject my kid to it, and I'm sure it will die out in time.
    Are people honestly spouting that kind of nonsense as fact? If circumcised penis' are so mutilated or whatever you guys feel, why are a majority of porn actors circumcised? There are no notable side effects regarding performance, and anyone who tries to argue any differently is flat out wrong.