Male circumcision

Cold War Kid

Half watching East Is East again after seeing it years ago. Good film.

The little boy got circumcised earlier and was in so much pain; it was fukcing heartbreaking.

Please don't turn this into a gender war of which is worse, MGM or FGM. They're different because of different organs, but they're both hideous.

If a man or older boy *chooses* MGM, well that's at least better than involuntary MGM but I think it's still barbaric and wonder what informs that choice (the hygiene thing and what else?) - MGM is criticised for sure, but also so accepted in other quarters, not just extreme religious ones. I find it hard to agree with this.

Circumcising little baby boys. Wtf? How...?!

kfallon

Giving the ould 'Jewish Chewing Gum' the snip eh!

Wang King

You want to put Rabbi's out of business? They only do this job for the tips!
Oi vey!

Banjo String

It's fcuking sore, I can tell you that much.

The guy that circumcised me was cock eyed, he got the sack.

kfallon

Banjo String wrote: »

It's fcuking sore, I can tell you that much.

Apt username!

Wang King

Wang King wrote: »

You want to put Rabbi's out of business? They only do this job for the tips!
Oi vey!

Useless trivia. Unless one is Jewish.

It's not a rabbi, it's a mohel.

Laoislion8383

Sore as feck that's for sure, but on a personal note being told by numerous sexual partners through out my life that I had plenty of staying power in the bedroom and done a bit of research on it and yes guys that get the procedure done young will find it hard(excuse the pun) to climax during sex, hence the staying power

Earthhorse

It's odd, I was just thinking about this earlier.

I read The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs who actually did an AMA on this site. It's a book about him trying to live strictly by the old testament. Throughout, he challenges everything put to him though he is fair. Only when it comes to circumcision does he seem to baulk at the task and hide behind tradition. I was really disappointed with that and I don't know what brought it to my mind today but, in short, I agree.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Its a bloody rip off.

mad muffin

As someone who was circumcised at 6 years old due to an infection, I can tell you, I'd rather would have had it done as a baby.

I remember it (and I don't remember much from 6 years old) it was painful.

As far as sensitivity. No problems in that department.

Mr_Muffin

Circumcised men are not real men. They have a part of them missing.

P_1

Should not be done before anyone can consent to it in my eyes. Ridiculous invasion of bodily integrity usually done for religious (Judaism or Islam) or monetary (American pediatricians) means.

osarusan

I do not know much of what's behind this, but it seems like a strange story, and a cruel one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/heather-hironimus-intactivist-mom-who-took-son-into-hiding-to-save-his-foreskin-sobs-in-court-as-she-signs-consent-for-circumcision

Hironimus and her four-year-old-son’s father, Dennis Nebus, have been warring for years over whether to have the boy’s foreskin removed. She initially agreed in a parenting agreement filed in court, then changed her mind, giving way to a long legal fight. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father.

With her legal options dwindling, Hironimus went missing in February, and ignored a judge’s order that she appear in court and give her consent for the surgery to be performed. A warrant was issued, but she wasn’t located until May 14 at a Broward County shelter where she was staying with her son.

Brought before Judge Jeffrey Gillen on Friday, Hironimus again declined to sign a consent form for the surgery, and she was advised she would remain jailed indefinitely. After the hearing recessed and she reconsidered, she reluctantly agreed to sign, sobbing as she put pen to paper.

Though the signature solved a contempt charge against her, she still faces a criminal charge of interference with child custody.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Circumcising little baby boys. Wtf? How...?!

Scissors.

REXER

For truly barbaric and outrageous you need to check out Symphysiotomy!

Now thats really some fcukedup ****e. :eek:

DrGreenthumb

I was going to become a Jew, but I just couldn't cut it

Summer wind

My son had to be circumcised when he was 3. I nearly went mad in the weeks leading up to the operation worrying. I really really didn't want him to have to go through it but on the day he actually thought he was in a hotel and although he was fairly sore afterwards the operation solved his problem. He was fine very soon afterwards and we were all so relieved he was ok and the operation worked.

I don't agree with circumcisions on new little baby boys for no reason. I think it's horrific and shouldn't be allowed. I couldn't imagine allowing anyone doing that to my baby ever.

My name is URL

An individuals right to bodily integrity should always outweigh someone else's right to religious or traditionalist freedoms

I've posted that a few times before and my mind has yet to be changed.

German courts decided on introducing a similar law but some Jews cried discrimination and they reversed the decision. Some orthodox Jews have a Rabbi suck the baby's dick after the 'surgery' too. Lovely stuff

My name is URL

Confucius say wrote: »

Obviously I have no memory of it so what's the harm? You're not conscious as a baby.

You don't sound 'conscious' now

Summer wind

Confucius say wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm not sure mine had to be done for a reason or not, but I'm glad it's done now. Obviously I have no memory of it so what's the harm? You're not conscious as a baby.

I can assure you a baby can feel pain.

Summer wind

Confucius say wrote: »

You've experimented on them?

Oh I have yes it's my hobby.

readyletsgo

My name is URL wrote: »

.....Some orthodox Jews have a Rabbi suck the baby's dick after the 'surgery' too. Lovely stuff

What? Is that for real? Really?

SparkySpitfire

readyletsgo wrote: »

What? Is that for real? Really?

Yeah I've come across that tidbit before, something about preventing infection...

readyletsgo

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

Yeah I've come across that tidbit before, something about preventing infection...

Peel and wash maybe?

Seriously, they will suck, the babies, cock, to stop infection. Eh. IDK what to say to that if its true. Do you have a link to anything backing that up?

What the fook is wrong with humans! Born with it, if it's too tight then you have to get it fixed or removed, grand. But getting it removed as a baby and then having someone suck on it? I know I'm an adult and I'm associating sexual things with that but, wouldn't the guy doing the circumcision be an adult too?

My name is URL

readyletsgo wrote: »

What? Is that for real? Really?

Yep, Google 'Metzitzah b'peh'... or don't

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

I've posted that a few times before and my mind has yet to be changed.

German courts decided on introducing a similar law but some Jews cried discrimination and they reversed the decision. Some orthodox Jews have a Rabbi suck the baby's dick after the 'surgery' too. Lovely stuff

I have no great time for religious practices and find circumcision highly objectionable...but even still I still wouldn't characterise it as "sucking dick". That's a phrase that is associated with oral sex, it isn't oral sex, they can use their mouths to draw blood away from the cut.

Junkyard Tom

Adults chopping bits of children's genitalia off.

Fucking creepy.

readyletsgo

readyletsgo wrote: »

Peel and wash maybe?

Seriously, they will suck, the babies, cock, to stop infection. Eh. IDK what to say to that if its true. Do you have a link to anything backing that up?

What the fook is wrong with humans! Born with it, if it's too tight then you have to get it fixed or removed, grand. But getting it removed as a baby and then having someone suck on it? I know I'm an adult and I'm associating sexual things with that but, wouldn't the guy doing the circumcision be an adult too?

He would, but not an adult that automatically assumes that placing the mouth on the penis equates to...snigger snigger nudge nudge..."sucking dick". It's borderline "they're all gay".

whupdedo

I'm circumcised and I have to say I can't imagine any fella not having it done , I think I'd hate the feel of it but I suppose I wouldn't know any different, I had it done as a baby and sur nobody remembers what happens them a baby so I can't see the harm in it

My name is URL

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no great time for religious practices and find circumcision highly objectionable...but even still I still wouldn't characterise it as "sucking dick". That's a phrase that is associated with oral sex, it isn't oral sex, they can use their mouths to draw blood away from the cut.

What part of 'sucking' on a 'dick' is incorrect?

Ultra-orthodox Rabbis sometimes suck on baby's dicks... that is a factually correct statement.

I never mentioned sex. Performing female genital mutilation isn't a sex act either.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Throughout, he challenges everything put to him though he is fair. Only when it comes to circumcision does he seem to baulk at the task and hide behind tradition.

I read that too. It was an obvious cop out, and as you say quite disappointing.

I'm against all ritual mutilation, from genital mutilation to tribal scarification. Tradition is not an adequate reason to harm a persons body.

Lucifer MorningStar

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Circumcised men are not real men. They have a part of them missing.

Shut up ya cheesedick :pac:

Mr_Muffin

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Circumcised men are not real men. They have a part of them missing.

By that logic someone whose toenail falls off isn't a real person, since part of them is missing.

DoYouEvenLift

Any parent who does this to their children without fully considering what it is they're actually doing is a scumbag. The only exception for infant circumcission should be health risks where it's an absolute necessity, other than that the option should be entirely up to the individual when they turn 18. Even then, unless there was severe phimosis, I think anyone that did it would be stupid because there are so many cons to circumcission. This wouldn't be needed if parents taught their children correct personal hygiene when growing up anyway, one is supposed to pull the foreskin back to properly clean their dick and also make sure they don't develop an 'anteater' dick.


At least it's not as popular in Ireland as it is in America, and even they are beginning to cop on. The worst would be fathers who are all for circumcising their sons just because "well I'm circumcised so I guess I'll do the same to my son."

Chloris

My partner has his done as a baby. He's never brought it up with his parents and they've never explained it but his brother isn't circumscised so it's probably for health reasons. Although his mom is a bit of a freak about cleanliness and he is the eldest... I'd love to know what their motivation was.

Anyway, I think it's fantastic. I think foreskins are completely gross now. Although it's definitely true about the reduced sensitivity, I think the benefits outweigh the cost. Plus, when you jizz, the sensation is just as good... It'll probably just mean a longer build-up, and I can't really see how that's a bad thing either.

While I would be completely opposed to doing it to a young child (other than for medical reasons) I think it's difficult to say whether it's ethical to do it to an infant. If more research became available with the health benefits, I might think otherwise.

Tin Foil Hat

It should be banned. No question. As they say - your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of another persons nose. Similarly, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of a baby boy's penis.

SparkySpitfire

readyletsgo wrote: »

Seriously, they will suck, the babies, cock, to stop infection. Eh. IDK what to say to that if its true. Do you have a link to anything backing that up?

Here's the Wikipedia entry on it (I did look up some of the source links cos Wiki can be dodge, feel free to research those sources yourself, as I wouldn't quote Wiki as Gospel, but it can't be THAT wrong)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Metzitzah_B.27Peh

The practice has been banned in NY without written consent from parents:
http://forward.com/news/195306/rabbi-performs-controversial-metzitzah-bpeh-circum/

Here's a news article relating that recently enough some babies have contracted herpes as a result of the practice :eek:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/05/jewish-mohels-banned_n_5650672.html


It appears that it's not the most common practice; seems like only a few people follow it so you can't say that it happens in most circumcisions, but it does sometimes happen.

agent graves

Chloris wrote: »

when you jizz

ha nicely put.. both my brothers had to get it done when they were babies because their foreskin was very tight.. and it would have to be done at a later age so as babies was the better option..

Junkyard Tom

Chloris wrote: »

I think it's difficult to say whether it's ethical to do it to an infant.

No it isn't difficult at all - it's a barbaric practice.

Aside from the fact that it is mutilating a baby's genitals causing unnecessary pain and suffering over one hundred babies die in the US each year because of this completely unnecessary practice.

If over 100 babies having their penises mutilated, often because of moronic religious edict, die in the US can you imagine how many babies in less developed countries die or are left mutilated?

How the **** is this even an argument?

Kylo Ren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

It's mental how it's so popular in the U.S.

pablomakaveli

You can blame the founder of Kelloggs for the prevalence of non-religious cirumcision. The guy was an avid anti-masturbation campaigner and advocated cirumcision to prevent masturbation which is why it's so prevalent in America. He also invented Corn Flakes because he thought it would help prevent masturbation.

Cold War Kid

pablomakaveli wrote: »

He also invented Corn Flakes because he thought it would help prevent masturbation.

:pac:
Quote of the day.

Chloris

Junkyard Cat wrote:

If over 100 babies having their penises mutilated, often because of moronic religious edict, die in the US can you imagine how many babies in less developed countries die or are left mutilated?

It's not exclusively for religious reasons and in fact if you read my post, I never advocated the religious reason for doing it. It was more than likely done for medical reasons in my partner's case. It certainly shouldn't be done in countries where their medical system is inadequate.

I'd imagine all cases of babies dying in the US after circumcision are to do with negligence or poor infection control procedures. I'd like to see the statistics from Ireland; I'd imagine that because the procedure is rarer here, the statistics would show the risk to be negligible (given the rate in America). I don't think that is reason enough to discredit the procedure entirely.

endacl

Leave it till lads are 16, and non-medical circumcision would disappear overnight.

Links234

Cold War Kid wrote: »

:pac:
Quote of the day.

Bizarre, but true. I think it was he felt that too much meat in one's diet led to masturbation, so wanted to replace steak and eggs and the like as breakfast.

Detached Retina

My ex husband (well going through separation) is Muslim,though non religious - where he's from they tend to circumcise older boys,not babies, but before puberty. He was always indifferent with the results,and he said they were told as kids it was their choice but you wont get the party and presents if you don't he remembered being about 11, very sore at basically a big party for him - but aside from the major pain, it was great fun. He said how they did it was an Imam had literally scraped it off with something kind of blunt :eek: they do it in clinics now, but it's considered extra special if you get the traditional method (may have been bullsh*tting there). I have a 17 month old son,and he's brought circumcision up, as in wants him to have it. I said,when he's 18 and can consent, ask him yourself if he wants to. Not a chance,unless by some fluke he developed urinary problems with his foreskin:mad:

pablomakaveli

Links234 wrote: »

Bizarre, but true. I think it was he felt that too much meat in one's diet led to masturbation, so wanted to replace steak and eggs and the like as breakfast.

His thinking was sweet or spicy food enflamed peoples passions leading to masturbation and other saucy shenanigans.

Chloris

pablomakaveli wrote:

His thinking was sweet or spicy food enflamed peoples passions leading to masturbation and other saucy shenanigans.

I read somewhere on the Internet that he thought people would just eat the cereal instead of masturbating.

Links234

Chloris wrote: »

I read somewhere on the Internet that he thought people would just eat the cereal instead of masturbating.

That doesn't make sense, you can do both at the same time.

The Diabolical Monocle

pablomakaveli wrote: »

His thinking was sweet or spicy food enflamed peoples passions leading to masturbation and other saucy shenanigans.

someone must have been feeding me vindaloo in my sleep all these years.

Chloris

Links234 wrote:

That doesn't make sense, you can do both at the same time.

But alas, you'll probably enjoy neither!