Male Circumcision

[kreeden]

Tigress, I think any kind of genital mutilation done to children who cannot consent to it is highly suspect and possibly barbaric.

I agree . Have agreed for as long as I can remember . Unless there are medical reasons for it .... don't really understand the religious logic ...

 

[Ðanisty]

how can cutting off a peice of childs skin for no medical reason not be considered mutilation? i'm pretty sure cutting off a part of an adults skin and peircings tattoos etc are considered mutilation too. the only difference being, as an adult you are of sound mind to make the decisions to have things done. it's wrong to force it upon a child, it's as bad as abuse!

Piercings and tattoos are not considered mutilation. I mean, you can call it that if you want to, but you aren't going to find anyone who participates in these practices considering it mutilation. Mutilation would be if the penis could no longer function as intended. Since circumcised penises can both urinate and ejaculate and might I add cause and receive great pleasure, then I simply cannot consider it mutilation.

mu·ti·late (my

t

l-

t

)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter[SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE].
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

What soft, polite, politically correct word do you wish people would use when referring to the mutilation?

What I'm saying is that a large number of people simply don't consider circumcision to be a form of mutilation. There is no word you can use because the definition doesn't apply.

Thankfully here.
Tattooing children is considered assault and tantamount to child cruelty, punishable by imprisonment, regardless of your culture or religion.

As it is here, but that doesn't mean I consider it mutilation and if other cultures wish to practice such things, I'm fine with that.

It demonstrates the parent's complete disregard for health and safety priorites by exposing infants to contagious diseases by tattooing them with potentially infected needles.

This is loaded with ignorance. There is very little reason to worry about such things in a sterile environment. I used to be a tattoo artist and I have many tattoos of my own. With proper care and administration, the risks are extremely low. A needle that comes straight out of an autoclave is not going to be infected. They are sterilized using the same procedure as hospital equipment. Think what you want about the practice of tattooing, but done right, the risk is rather miniscule. A person would be more likely to get food poisoning.

Mutilation Dansity..is deformation or removal of bodily tissue...tattooing and circumcision are both methods of mutilation.

Have a look at the definition above. One would have to consider a circumcised penis disfigured, damaged, or imperfect for one to believe circumcision is equal to mutilation.

The strongest argument for circumcision is not health, but almost certainly mere tradition. That is not a logical argument, but it is probably the argument that most sways people on the issue. People are simply comfortable with what they have learned to accept. People tend to think that what exists and is done widely is for those very reasons right. That's just human nature. We're essentially a conservative animal.

That may be Sunstone, but I don't have a problem with tradition.

 

[darkpenguin]

if its for religious reasons then it's wrong on the basis that if 'god' had wanted us to be lacking a body part he would not have made it that way, but seeing as evolution made it that way then it's silly to think it should be removed for reasons other than medical, yes it could potentially cause dissease and maybe death but that is just natures way of controling population, the same as famine, natural disasters etc, it's nature basicly saying 'look there isn't enough room to allow this many people.'

 

[kreeden]

Piercings and tattoos are not considered mutilation. I mean, you can call it that if you want to, but you aren't going to find anyone who participates in these practices considering it mutilation. Mutilation would be if the penis could no longer function as intended. Since circumcised penises can both urinate and ejaculate and might I add cause and receive great pleasure, then I simply cannot consider it mutilation.

Actually I do consider them a lesser form of mutilation Danisty . Even pierced ears . Perhaps disfigurement would be a better term ? But if a person is old enough to decide on their own ...

BTW by removing the protective layer of skin , one does not recievve quite as much pleasure as one would have .... or so I have heard . { no quite sure how they would know for sure , but it makes sense ..... no pun intented }. It desensitises ...

Oh , and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with piercings or tats . Just that they aren't for everyone . And if you have pierced ears , and handle a baby , then WEAR STUDS ! I do not enjoy watching skin ripping .

 

[kreeden]

BTW I should add that I try to respect others traditions . And I am not going to condemn anyone . But I really don't see any need for most circumcisions and believe that they are caused by outdated beliefs .

 

[Ðanisty]

Actually I do consider them a lesser form of mutilation Danisty . Even pierced ears . Perhaps disfigurement would be a better term ? But if a person is old enough to decide on their own ...

Do you consider it to be disfiguring, damaging, or imperfect? I don't. I don't see any difference in these things (piercing & tattooing) and hair dying, makeup, dressing up, etc. For tattoo and piercing fanatics, it's an improvement on what's already there...instead of making the body imperfect, it's making the body more perfect. *shrug*

BTW by removing the protective layer of skin , one does not recievve quite as much pleasure as one would have .... or so I have heard . { no quite sure how they would know for sure , but it makes sense ..... no pun intented }. It desensitises ...

So people say, but I'm not sure if we can really come up with any proof on this. It would take a circumcised man having a circumcision and reporting his results...even then, that could vary greatly between people. Also, getting circumcised as an adult may produce different results than getting circumcised as a child. What I can say is that I've had sex with a number of circumcised men and they all seem to derive immense satisfaction from sex. They certainly didn't seem to enjoy it any less than the uncircumcised men I've had sex with.

Oh , and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with piercings or tats . Just that they aren't for everyone . And if you have pierced ears , and handle a baby , then WEAR STUDS ! I do not enjoy watching skin ripping .

I didn't think you were saying that.

This is something that interests me. For those who say that piercing is mutilation, how do you account for the fact that a proper piercing closes if the jewelry is left out? Piercing is not permanent.

 

[kreeden]

Do you consider it to be disfiguring, damaging, or imperfect? I don't. I don't see any difference in these things (piercing & tattooing) and hair dying, makeup, dressing up, etc. For tattoo and piercing fanatics, it's an improvement on what's already there...instead of making the body imperfect, it's making the body more perfect. *shrug*

No , a " lesser " disfiguring perhaps . Personally I have never dyed my hair , wore makeup , and dress up rarely . So I don't really see the need to poke holes in yourself just to hang things from ...

So people say, but I'm not sure if we can really come up with any proof on this. It would take a circumcised man having a circumcision and reporting his results...even then, that could vary greatly between people.

I agree . However it does kinda make sense that if one removes a protective layer , then the remaining skin would have to become more protective ... Just how much that would desensitise , I couldn't say .... and really wouldn't want to find out myself ...

This is something that interests me. For those who say that piercing is mutilation, how do you account for the fact that a proper piercing closes if the jewelry is left out? Piercing is not permanent.

A wound closes in time . Perhaps mutilation isn't the best term , but it is an inflicted wound . It is just a matter of how far one would go I guess . Some cultures use cuttings to produce scars . Some cut off boby parts to show honour or loyality , although that is most often used as a sign of failure or punishment . Binding a youg girls feet . All in the name of ... what ? Beauty ? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder . And I just don't see the need for all of that .

But at the same time , I have to admit that I have seen tats that I did like . So it all is somewhat subjective ...

Hey , I don't even do that ritual where men scrape off their facial hair ...