Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #81
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.
-
-
The Roman Catholic Church is currently neutral on the subject. Previously, however, they denounced it.
-
And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.
-
[citation needed]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But the fact remains that it IS harmful, regardless of its extent.
Edited:
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I know, but the penis functions perfectly well, circumcision or not, if the job was done correctly.
Edited:
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
i don't like circumcision the thought of cutting my penis is too painful
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh. Well then I'm out.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
-snip-
-
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.
-
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.
-
I know about that, I'm talking about post operation. My friend described it as a week of hell.
-
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.
