posted
It's difficult NOT to be angry about that. But I wasn't even at the snarling like a bear point until Lisa starting on this http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=101041856655798 Harsh. I'm antisemitic because I don't believe people have the right to cut such a personal delicate body part?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, honey. I am on your side but take it down a notch. They are not cutting the whole thing off. You have heard from lots of men here who haven't been horribly traumatized and who have suffered no debilitating damage from circumcision. More than likely, most of the men you know are circumcised and are not tortured by it.
It is falling out of favor and as people realize that it isn't necessary for medical reasons it will taper down to just those who consider it necessary for religious purposes. And you are not going to be able to change a religious practice that is thousands of years old - as old as the religion itself. So let that go.
I applaud your passion for children, but recognize that there are big hurts and small ones and regain a sense of proportion.
Hey. It could be worse. Masaii do this with a machete-type knife (and no anesthetic) when they reach puberty. Showing any fear or pain is considered a dishonor.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Am I the only one creeped out by the testimonials of males being ridiculed for having an intact penis? I am intact and outside of a locker room where we all politely stare at the ceiling and dress quickly the only people I have exposed my genitals to are people I have been intimate with. I have never in my life had comments made about my foreskin, especially in a derogatory manner. The idea of someone besides a lover talking about my penis, is creepy and made more so by making fun of it.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am creeped out by that. You should read some of these magazine things in which women go on about dirty anteaters and such. That's not very nice... Or they say, I don't want to date someone with that flap of dirty skin. Mean. -_-
*sigh* It's probably a bit hurt if you're a baby though...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember seeing my Muslim classmates in the locker room and since I knew they were not circumcised until they were 10 years old or so I made the connection that what I was seeing was an uncircumcised penis. I don't think it ever occurred to me to laugh or make fun of them, to me it was just another fact about them, like their darker skin, their naming scheme (Ibrahim instead of Abraham), etc.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
AchillesHeel, I find that odd, too. I don't see an aesthetic disadvantage to penises with foreskin and, as the men I have been with all seem to have been normally able to wash themselves, no other problem either. It would never occur to me to find it odd or unattractive. Nor have I noticed a consistent difference in "performance".
ETA: Syn, a good way to weed out shallow women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Funny you should say that. I was living in Israel when the Soviet Union fell. One million former captives of the Soviet Union immigrated to Israel over the course of a single year.
During that year alone, forty thousand grown men who hadn't been circumcised in the USSR because of the anti-Jewish repression went and got circumcised.
Happily, an awful lot of Jews care about being Jewish, and care about what the Creator of the world wants us to do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
The hell you say. The people on that page are neither ignorant nor fools. You know, the USA is almost 235 years old. In a century or two, it'll be history like all of the other nations we've outlived. The railing against circumcision here is almost funny. We might even remember this particular effort. Or it might get lumped into all of the other ill-considered attempts to thwart God's will.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: I'll be happy if it can pass in SF or anywhere for that matter. Religious freedom only extends to a singular person or a recognized organization, no one should have the right to cut on a baby because of thier own faith. A baby has no chance to talk on the matter and has no religion, and I find it hard to believe that any male at the age of eighteen would choose to remove part of their genitals for no reason aside from an active health problem.
Funny you should say that. I was living in Israel when the Soviet Union fell. One million former captives of the Soviet Union immigrated to Israel over the course of a single year.
During that year alone, forty thousand grown men who hadn't been circumcised in the USSR because of the anti-Jewish repression went and got circumcised.
Happily, an awful lot of Jews care about being Jewish, and care about what the Creator of the world wants us to do.
You have to understand that I am an atheist, and therefore it still makes no sense to me. I understand it, I just cant understand why a grown man would allow any ideology to physically effect such a sensitive body part, or any for that matter.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: AchillesHeel, I find that odd, too. I don't see an aesthetic disadvantage to penises with foreskin and, as the men I have been with all seem to have been normally able to wash themselves, no other problem either. It would never occur to me to find it odd or unattractive. Nor have I noticed a consistent difference in "performance".
ETA: Syn, a good way to weed out shallow women.
I wasnt refering to how it works, the intact penis seems to have been doing a good job for hundreds of thousands of years. I was commenting on how interested and judgemental some people seem to be about someone elses penis. I dont like the idea of anyone besides the baby boy in question deciding to remove parts his genitals, but I have no interest in the penile status of anyone in the world. I just dont.
The idea of concerning oneself with the genitals of another outside of a consensual medical or romantic setting is downright odd to me. It isnt as if women are judged openly about how thier vagina looks.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, vaginae are a bit harder to see in a locker room. Certainly, everything visible about our bodies is thoroughly judged. Including breasts and whatever pubic grooming is there to see.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
The answer is "yes."
Also, laugh out loud at that facebook group, honestly. Every time I think the circumcision debate has hit Peak Crazy, I see something like that and have to re-estimate the upper potential levels of nutty zealotry on both sides of this debate.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
I'm trying not to, but it's difficult. Especially since I have doubts about circumcision being an HIV vaccine and the fact that I am NOT a NAZI.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Wait a second.... Its illegal to sell booze after a certain time where you live? That is so strange to me. I live in Vegas though so I'm used to being able to do pretty much anything 24 hours a day.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arizona is still in the grips of the fundamentist christians, and our alcohol laws reflect that. Although recently the time to start selling beer on Sunday was brought down from ten to six a.m. And as the person who is present for last-call and the earliest moment one can puchase alcohol, the way people act for and on alcohol has made me straightedge.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I lived in South Carolina, retail stores like the Pier One where I worked couldn't even open until after noon on Sundays.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
+1
Reasonable people can disagree, without thinking the other person is evil.
Shame there aren't more reasonable people.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Eh, no big. I get called racist and a nazi regularly for not breaking the law and for following the store's orders when Im working the graveyard shift at my gas station, apparently not selling beer after it is illegal and not having a public bathroom makes you a bigot. I just find people to be immature and petulant when thier automatic defense is that whoever they disagree with must be the most horrible kind of person imaginable, and that they must be the victim in the matter.
Wait a second.... Its illegal to sell booze after a certain time where you live? That is so strange to me. I live in Vegas though so I'm used to being able to do pretty much anything 24 hours a day.
midnight here
although I think our blue laws are all but done; we just got rid of the sunday prohibitions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Fruitbat. We're talking about a piece of skin smaller than the nail on your little finger. It doesn't get "peeled" away. It's snipped and that's it. Have you ever seen a circumcision? Unlikely.
As far as pejoratives go, fruitbat isn't close to the worst, but the principle is still the same Lisa, don't call people names.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Syne, I know the people on that Facebook page are a bunch of ignorant fools. But are you really going to let yourself get wound up about the Internet?
I'm trying not to, but it's difficult. Especially since I have doubts about circumcision being an HIV vaccine and the fact that I am NOT a NAZI.
No one called you a Nazi. And I think it's pretty childish of you to continue beating that particular dead horse.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not nearly as painful as having the prepuce cut and peeled away. This is getting ridiculous. How can people NOT think that hurts like hell? And even if they get over it, why do it in the first place? It's too risky. There's stuff like MRSA and gangrene to consider. Gangrene... there...
Fruitbat. We're talking about a piece of skin smaller than the nail on your little finger. It doesn't get "peeled" away. It's snipped and that's it. Have you ever seen a circumcision? Unlikely.
As far as pejoratives go, fruitbat isn't close to the worst, but the principle is still the same Lisa, don't call people names.
She says she likes fruitbats.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: Then you are lucky your insult was not particularly insulting. Unless you are claiming you knew that Synethesia would not take offence at being called a fruitbat, something I am not willing to rule out, but I feel is very unlikely.
Synesthesia certainly didn't indicate that you had some sort of inside knowledge I don't have. Just don't do it please.
edit: Or now that she has indicated she doesn't like it, I think we can rule out the latter possibility.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It actually doesn't just get snipped. It's fused to the glans.
Do tell. And which of us has actually seen a circumcision?
Lisa, the foreskin is typically adhered to the glans of the penis of a neonate. It often does need to be separated manually before circumcision, including for a traditional Jewish circumcision, but this can usually be done quite quickly [with a few seconds of careful motion].
quote:The adhesions between the glans and foreskin are separated using a probe. The foreskin is pulled away from the glans. This process is often done with a hemostat. --from the above link
There are references to this throughout the internet:
quote:The mohel uses a magen or shield to protect the glans and guide the knife. He may use a silver probe to loosen the foreskin before beginning. There are three phases to the procedure: me'ilah, the actual removal of the foreskin; p'riah, the tearing of the genital membrane underneath the foreskin back to the corona; and m'tzitzah--suction--the removal of blood and cleaning of the affected area. --from My Jewish Learning
---
Added: I was trained to do circumcisions (but obviously, not a bris) using both the Gomco and the Mogen. The foreskin is usually quite adherent [at at least a spot or two], but different people have different ways of making sure it separates. I believe the completeness of separation is a particular factor of concern for a bris, although that I do not have firsthand knowledge of.
Pain control was a primary concern where I worked. The most crying occurred as the baby was being secured (some really didn't like to be strapped down, which is how it was done there -- but I think it is different at a bris). Often they slept through the procedure.
We used the full combination of bundling in warm blankets, sugar water, non-nutritive sucking, premedication with tylenol, topical EMLA, and a lidocaine dorsal penile nerve block for pain control. Parents were welcomed to be present.
---
Also added: It is not a procedure I encourage, and I prefer not to do them. It is no longer a part of my job requirements, and that is fine by me.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Indeed. that's what someone said about their intact son. That it would be a bimbo deterrent.
I don't think preferring circumcised penises makes you shallow or a bimbo. That's insulting quite a few women for no good reason.
I prefer the women I have sex with not to have excessive armpit or leg hair and to keep themselves well trimmed down there. Actually, there are quite a few things I like and dislike sexually. I don't feel it makes me shallow, I just think it means I'm well aware of what I desire sexually. My partners make a concerted effort to arouse and please me, and I do the same. (I shave, work out, wear cologne, and do other things I don't care to mention here)
I think it's more of an indication of the underlying sexism in our culture. Women are expected to do all sorts of unnatural things to be more sexually alluring to men - shave their bodies, wear heels, wear bras, fit into little dresses, pierce their ears, sometimes even get liposuction or breast augmentation surgery and it's taken with a grain of salt.
Women are expected to meet a man's expectations. But as soon as a woman expresses her own expectations - I prefer a man who's muscular and tone, I prefer a man who's clean shaven/has a beard and smells nice/smells natural, I prefer a man with/without a foreskin - they're dismissed as being shallow or sluts.
What if a girl is genuinely grossed out by an uncircumcised penis (and I've met plenty that are), and because of that views fellatio as something that's disgusting and humiliating instead of enjoyable? Doesn't she have the right to seek out circumcised partners to make her experience more enjoyable without being called a slut?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I'm not sure if a person should pick their partners based on their genitals. I'm just saying that's not the best basis for a relationship. It just seems wrong to be grossed out by a body part that is intact the way nature intended it. Plus, a lot of it comes from a culture that is really negative about foreskins going on about how dirty they are, when it's not the case. You get some cultures going on about how intact natural vagina is soooooooo nasty. It's kind of harsh either way. Why should a dude have to get part of his body cut to please these ditzy women in the first place? I'm not going to get parts of me altered for some man. I'm going to find a man or even a woman who will appreciate all of me, and men deserve that too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider a man who expected me to do unnatural things to my body to be shallow, too. Thankfully, there are plenty of lovely men who appreciate women with all their parts. I do, in fact, find asking about those preferences to be a good way to sort out those men who are too shallow for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexual attraction is something of a mystery, different cultures at different times in history have sought out different aesthetics in their mates.
(I think) I understand where Dogbreath is coming from, that if you do have a personal preference of how your partner should look/dress/smell/etc that doesn't make you shallow.
(I think) I understand where the ladies are coming from, that part of what they are searching for in a mate is someone who accepts them and their natural bodies as they are.
I think it's unrealistic to not try find a mate who you are attracted to, and sometimes that will be physical traits which can greatly differ from one person to another (surgically altered or not). As much as I would like to think I could accept anyone no matter their physicality as a possible mate (if I weren't married to a beautiful, intelligent, wonderful woman) I must admit that it is not true. I could not have a relationship with someone I didn't find attractive, not matter who they were on the inside. I don't believe that makes me shallow. I could of course have a friendship with them, and enjoy their company.
Boots: American culture expects women to shave their legs, armpits and bikini line, I think it is unfair to say a man is shallow simply because he accepts his culture's standard of beauty. I actually don't care either way (although I do have some preferences, but this is not the place to discuss that), but that's not the point.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, the distinction isn't necessarily that a person is being shallow for preferring a particular standard of beauty. (After all, we're all going to have preferences and it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily pick one standard as "shallow.")
But that the person is being shallow by expecting that a partner should change themselves to fit that standard regardless of how they might feel about the matter, particularly when modifications are permanent.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's purely warped though to consider the intact male penis to be gross though. It's not as if vaginas and vulvas are a fragrant rose garden either...
I can't help but think it is shallow to not only reject a man for having a foreskin but to make him get it cut off? See, that's in some ways you can compare this to FGM. Folks who believe in it will say, but it's soooooooo much cleaner and men like it better. http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752 I've got to find this article about FGM and what some dude had to say about it. But it's pretty warped. It's seriously warped that people think you have to cut the most pleasurable parts of the genitals. Especially on children. There's so many things that are warped, but what can you DO about them?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think (nor did I say) that trying to be attractive to one's partner is shallow. I did express the opinion that expecting one's partner to modify body parts - and I would add especially by surgery - to be shallow.
If, for example, a man would only date me if I got a boob job, he would be a non-starter.
ETA: BTW, Synesthesia, there are lots of people who delight in the natural (assuming good health and hygiene) smells of their partner's bodies, especially in the more private places.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, I'm not sure if a person should pick their partners based on their genitals. I'm just saying that's not the best basis for a relationship.
Why not? What makes the genitals taboo? Men have preferences on women, why not the reverse? How many songs are there out there about men who like big butts? Or fake breasts?
My wife grew up in Europe, where most men are not cut. She said they freaked her out because she thought they were ugly. I think the phrase she used was something like "It looks like a creepy worm." She likes the look of a circumsized penis.
It was not the basis of our relationship and I doubt it would have been a deal breaker, but it is her preference. I do think you are right though, it shouldn't be the basis of a relationship. Unfortunately the amount of men that date women just because "She has a big ass" or "she has huge boobs" is just too common.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's purely warped though to consider the intact male penis to be gross though.
I'm one of those warped thinkers who prefers a circumcised penis. However, if the man in question is well-suited in other ways, I wouldn't reject him for being intact. Nor would I demand he get circumcised.
Heaven forbid a man have a body part women prefer to have changed!
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't help but think it is shallow to not only reject a man for having a foreskin but to make him get it cut off? See, that's in some ways you can compare this to FGM.
quote:In a study of infibulation in the Horn of Africa, Pieters observed that the procedure involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching. In some cases the girl's legs have been tied together for two to six weeks, to prevent her from moving and to allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains but the walls of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of an opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through; see Diagram 1D. Generally, a practitioner recognized as having the necessary skill carries out this procedure, and a local anesthetic is used. However, when carried out "in the bush", infibulation is often performed by an elderly matron or midwife of the village, without sterile procedure or anesthesia.[31]
Comparing an adult male being pressured by his partner into a voluntarily surgery done in a hospital with a preteen girl being held down and having her genitals scrapped off with a sharp object and then having her legs tied together for weeks at a time is not helpful to your cause and will only piss people off, like myself.
I have tried very hard to be respectful of your beliefs and the kindness which motivates them. But if you keep making a comparison between a minor surgery and an atrocity against humanity I will not remain civil with you Syn.
posted
Not changed Took, removed. A highly sensitive part of the male sexual organ, cut off. And I should point out that no one here is endorsing men forcing women to alter thier bodies either.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please stop being pissed off because to an infant it's probably NOT a minor surgery. First of all, no one should pressure someone to alter their body, let alone do it to an infant. It's wrong. Plan and simple. If someone, for example wanted me to get surgery on my hand to remove this patch of skin, I'd be like HELL NO. Because it's my scars, I love them, and a person should love all of you, even if your penis looks like an anteater or some soldier helmet. It's just wrong either way.
Furthermore, whether it's done in a clean sterile environment, or just a little snip, or a jab with a needle on the clitoris or infibulation on a dirty cottage it is STILL WRONG TO TAMPER WITH ANYONE'S GENITALS LIKE THAT!
Plus most circumcisions on infant's aren't performed with anesthesia either. I'm sorry, bu tno one has the right to cut anyone's body over culture and religion or because they don't like natural genitals. Having whole genitals should be a human right. This is not difficult to understand.
Plus the REASONS are similar. Not the exucution. Culture, because people think natural genitals are disgusting. How did this ever happen in the first place? And why can't we just stop doing this?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Synesthesia, take it easy. Again, try a little perspective. It has been explained many times why some people "can't just stop" circumcising.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
