does it really? is cleaning your penis harder than the rest of your body?
(and I can tell you are playing devil's advocate, which is probably a good thing since no one on the pro side has been able to state any sort of rational argument yet ;p)
I have two good arguments.
1. It is easier to clean (YES, it is. I have 4 brothers and I had to change diapers for 3 of them. Maybe doing it yourself is easy enough, but when you are wiping down a baby, it is way easier if there's not a skin flap you have to clean around.)
2. It makes cuter penises that are easier to handle. Plus, oral sex on an uncircumcised dude is pretty gross in my experience.
Maybe you don't agree with the values I hold that make those good reasons because they are subjective, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
if it's a religious reason then say so that's all.
I've never given oral to a circumcised female, so I guess I can't say which one is more/less gross
Way to presume the motivations of others, excellent debating tactic. It doesn't make you look like a douche at all.
Way to presume the motivations of others, excellent debating tactic. It doesn't make you look like a douche at all.
I dunno - I think Bruce knows I'm an atheist. I think it's a good general statement. People shouldn't make excuses that aren't really the reason for something.
I've never given oral to a circumcised female, so I guess I can't say which one is more/less gross
Okay, it's totally different. A circumcized woman would be like you without your GLANS. The foreskin is not the same as the clit. A more appropriate comparison would be a woman who shaves or waxes so there is no hair to protect her clit from the rubbing of her clothing.
I'll agree that female circumcision is a horrific thing. Would you support the removal of some sort of skin from down there that didn't really serve any purpose? like maybe that vaginal cosmetic surgery that "cleans it up a but", when your child is first born?
I'll agree that female circumcision is a horrific thing. Would you support the removal of some sort of skin from down there that didn't really serve any purpose? like maybe that vaginal cosmetic surgery that "cleans it up a but", when your child is first born?
If vaginas were as hard to clean as penises, then yes. They aren't. I have a little sister, too. I know what I'm talking about.
Way to presume the motivations of others, excellent debating tactic. It doesn't make you look like a douche at all.
I dunno - I think Bruce knows I'm an atheist. I think it's a good general statement. People shouldn't make excuses that aren't really the reason for something.
It just struck me as an incredibly passive agressive accusation. You gave logical reasoning, he responded with something that sounds a lot like "just admit it's religious reasons".
I'll agree that female circumcision is a horrific thing. Would you support the removal of some sort of skin from down there that didn't really serve any purpose? like maybe that vaginal cosmetic surgery that "cleans it up a but", when your child is first born?
If vaginas were as hard to clean as penises, then yes. They aren't. I have a little sister, too. I know what I'm talking about.
I have a brother and sister too, and I never had any problems changing them when they were little. I just can't get passed the idea of body modification to make changing a baby slightly easier. I really didn't find it all that difficult, it seems wrong to me to cut a piece off of my kid's penis for to make changing him slightly easier.
Also: Are you okay with piercings? Granted, we're not giving piercings to babies who can't consent, but circumcision is a similar idea, except it actually has some purpose, as a lot of people have their own personal reasons why they find it to be a good/useful practice. If you're upset about mutilation, there's a lot of mutilation out there to be upset about.
Piercings are actually an interesting topic. Spanish and Latin American tradition in some places is to pierce the ears of newborn daughters quite soon after birth, similar to male circumcision, so the girls grow up with earrings but don't deal with the pain of piercing. My grandfather, an OB/GYN and Spaniard with a huge Hispanic patient population, used to keep an autoclavable piercing gun and baby-sized sterile stainless steel studs in the office to provide this service safely and for free, if I recall correctly.
I do believe it is mostly a non-issue, since there's pros and cons to both and it's very habitable to live a life if you are uncircumcised or circumcised. I think the historical/religious reference is worth noting, but it's almost blended within our culture to an extent and is so harmless to us as people, that you can take it or leave it.
I could only see this though elevating into a controversial issue, if it interfered with the Jewish practice of "Brit Milah" and the ban was looked as an attack towards Judaism.
Back in my day, there was no chicken pox vaccine, and so I got it in first grade. As much as I dislike needles, I would have undergone that shot to not have to deal with the pain and itchy.
Circumcision is like plastic surgery for the penis. It may not be moral to make babies have it, but it is an optional and probably not very harmful procedure. We do all sorts of stuff to babies that they don't agree to. It's not that big a deal. edit: Also, Bruce, why do you leave so many spaces?
On the one hand, it's very wrong to mutilate someone's body without their consent. I don't think anyone here would support female genital mutilation of any kind, so why is male genital mutilation any different?
On the other hand I am circumcised, and glad. If I could magically undo it, I would not. And it's not for any religious or health-related reason. It's simply because that flap is kinda nasty. I obviously only think it's nasty because I don't have one, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I had one, I would probably have no desire to get rid of it. That's not the point though.
The point is, what if I did want to be circumcised, but wasn't as a baby? That means I'm in for some serious pain. I see a lot of people who are piercing their baby's ears. While it seems stupid in many ways, chief among them risk of infection, there is one good to it. If the ears are going to be pierced at some point anyway, why not do it as a baby so there is no memory of the pain? It can also save the parents the kind of aggravation they usually have when trying to get kids to take medicine or get shots at the doctor.
So yeah, it's a really funky issue, and I have no answer.
Do all cultural emanations have value simply because they are "culture"?
Are you born into a religion? What of the Child's freedom of religion? Should Brit Milah be imposed?
Not having your foreskin doesn't stop the child from choosing another religion. In fact, as I'm not actually aware of a religion that requires a foreskin, but a few that do, it might make it easier down the line!
1. It's easier to clean. This has been anecdotally corroborated by lots of men, and it really just makes sense. It's more work to dig stuff out from a flap of skin. I mean, my belly button gets pretty funky; I can't imagine what dick cheese would be like.
2. Again, anecdotally, the majority of women seem to find circumcised penises more attractive. I want women to find my penis attractive. Ergo, circumcision is the better option.
Could we stop comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision. While they are technically similar, one is traumatic mutilation, and the other is less severe than getting your tonsils removed.
I think children should make the choice and as such, it shouldn't be encouraged at birth in the same way you shouldn't say a child belongs to a particular religion at birth as there is no way they could comprehend what such a thing entails. Sorta the same way you should wait to decide if you want tattoos or piercings.
However, I don't think regulation is the right way to go about such things.
I personally don't see myself getting circumcised in the foreseeable future but that's mostly due to living in the civilised world where doing such things for non-religious obligations is seen as strange.
2. Again, anecdotally, the majority of women seem to find circumcised penises more attractive. I want women to find my penis attractive. Ergo, circumcision is the better option.
Disclaimer: I'm being an asshole here to prove a point not because I believe this.
Some women have ugly vaginas, they should have those meat curtains taken care of so that it looks nicer. Now, tell me why this statement is appallingly inappropriate but the reverse is ok?
If some one doesn't like me for who I am and vice versa, fuck'it.
On the one hand, it's very wrong to mutilate someone's body without their consent. I don't think anyone here would support female genital mutilation of any kind, so why is male genital mutilation any different?
Is that a serious question? Read Nuri's post again and then google "female circumcision", since the only way your question could be serious is if you simply have no idea what female circumcision actually is.
Oh wait - Scott actually doesn't know very much about female anatomy, does he? There's a joke in there somewhere . . .
I heard somewhere that even proper reduction surgery can lead to problems when done unnecessarily.
Most plastic surgeons I know consider performing that type of surgery a big ethical breech. No one knows enough about both plastics and obstetrics/gynecology to perform that kind of reconstruction safely, never mind that our knowledge of how enervation in the female reproductive system actually works is severely limited compared to what we know about other bodily systems (the hepatic system, the circulatory system, etc).
Comments
peace
I could only see this though elevating into a controversial issue, if it interfered with the Jewish practice of "Brit Milah" and the ban was looked as an attack towards Judaism.
Do all cultural emanations have value simply because they are "culture"?
Are you born into a religion? What of the Child's freedom of religion? Should Brit Milah be imposed?
Circumcision is like plastic surgery for the penis. It may not be moral to make babies have it, but it is an optional and probably not very harmful procedure. We do all sorts of stuff to babies that they don't agree to. It's not that big a deal.
edit: Also, Bruce, why do you leave so many spaces?
On the one hand, it's very wrong to mutilate someone's body without their consent. I don't think anyone here would support female genital mutilation of any kind, so why is male genital mutilation any different?
On the other hand I am circumcised, and glad. If I could magically undo it, I would not. And it's not for any religious or health-related reason. It's simply because that flap is kinda nasty. I obviously only think it's nasty because I don't have one, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I had one, I would probably have no desire to get rid of it. That's not the point though.
The point is, what if I did want to be circumcised, but wasn't as a baby? That means I'm in for some serious pain. I see a lot of people who are piercing their baby's ears. While it seems stupid in many ways, chief among them risk of infection, there is one good to it. If the ears are going to be pierced at some point anyway, why not do it as a baby so there is no memory of the pain? It can also save the parents the kind of aggravation they usually have when trying to get kids to take medicine or get shots at the doctor.
So yeah, it's a really funky issue, and I have no answer.
I do think circumcised men are more aesthetically pleasing down there, but that's not a reason to do surgery to babies.
1. It's easier to clean. This has been anecdotally corroborated by lots of men, and it really just makes sense. It's more work to dig stuff out from a flap of skin. I mean, my belly button gets pretty funky; I can't imagine what dick cheese would be like.
2. Again, anecdotally, the majority of women seem to find circumcised penises more attractive. I want women to find my penis attractive. Ergo, circumcision is the better option.
Religion simply doesn't factor into it.
I think children should make the choice and as such, it shouldn't be encouraged at birth in the same way you shouldn't say a child belongs to a particular religion at birth as there is no way they could comprehend what such a thing entails. Sorta the same way you should wait to decide if you want tattoos or piercings.
However, I don't think regulation is the right way to go about such things.
I personally don't see myself getting circumcised in the foreseeable future but that's mostly due to living in the civilised world where doing such things for non-religious obligations is seen as strange.
Some women have ugly vaginas, they should have those meat curtains taken care of so that it looks nicer.
Now, tell me why this statement is appallingly inappropriate but the reverse is ok?
If some one doesn't like me for who I am and vice versa, fuck'it.
I'm actually a Christian.
What is this...Self-control, of which you speak?
This post made almost entirely in jest.
And I'm all about well-groomed vaginas.
Oh wait - Scott actually doesn't know very much about female anatomy, does he? There's a joke in there somewhere . . .