This is interesting...
-
Seriously, I am all for it. I dislike the genital mutilation of children, especially when done for the reasons of a non-existent deity. Leave them to choose when they are old enough whether or not they wish to have bits of their body hacked off. It should not be up to others to assault children like this.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Absotively. And while they're at it , they should ban them for piercing kid's ears, noses, lips and eyebrows until at least their teen years. And don't get me started on rat's tails!
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Seriously, I am all for it.
But who gave you the right to decide for all the other parents? Removal of the foreskin has at least as much scientific evidence backing it as against it, and it is not the same as the removal of the clitoris which has been misnomered as female circumcision. The foreskin is the male equivalent of the hymen and while you may be proud to have kept yours intacta, it should not be a matter of interest to you what parents decide for their children, anymore than you should be involved in deciding what should be done with the placenta or umbilical cord - or do you think you have a right to pass laws about their disposal as well???
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Who gave people the right to cut pieces of other peoples bodies away? Evolution is a wonderful thing, if the foreskin wasn't necessary, we wouldn't have one. The law is simple, they have banned female circumcision, and that is good, but is it not perhaps sexist? It implies that whilst it is unacceptable to mutilate a girl, the law says it is ok to do that to a boy. Consistency is a wonderful thing, don't you think.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
-
Seriously, I am all for it. I dislike the genital mutilation of children, especially when done for the reasons of a non-existent deity. Leave them to choose when they are old enough whether or not they wish to have bits of their body hacked off. It should not be up to others to assault children like this.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Then how do you manage cases where individuals are circumcised for entirely medical reasons, (i.e., the foreskin is too tight to be able to pull back), where if the operation isn't undertaken there can be serious consequences for the child? Sorry guys you've got to suffer as we don't want anyone performing a medical procedure that has absolutely no harmful side effects and purportedly can have health, (and apparently 'performance'), benefits... I'm in the UK and am certainly not a rabid conservative but that is left wing lunacy at its best, gotta hate the nanny state!
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
-
Who gave people the right to cut pieces of other peoples bodies away? Evolution is a wonderful thing, if the foreskin wasn't necessary, we wouldn't have one. The law is simple, they have banned female circumcision, and that is good, but is it not perhaps sexist? It implies that whilst it is unacceptable to mutilate a girl, the law says it is ok to do that to a boy. Consistency is a wonderful thing, don't you think.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
The law is simple, they have banned female circumcision, and that is good, but is it not perhaps sexist?
It implies that whilst it is unacceptable to mutilate a girl, the law says it is ok to do that to a boyIf the two things were comparable you'd have a point, but they're not in any way. Whilst in the case of girls it really is an act of mutilation with boys its taking away a piece of skin the only real effects of which are to, over time, decrease sensitivity of the glans, (but not eradicate it or come anywhere close to), make it easier to clean and quite frankly decrease the likelyhood of a nasty zipper incident.
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
-
The female equivalent, complete removal of the clitoral hood, is outlawed (and IMO, rightly) in most legal jurisdictions in the western world. If it is barbaric genital mutialtion for girls, why is it not barbaric genital mutilation for boys?
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
If it is barbaric genital mutialtion for girls, why is it not barbaric genital mutilation for boys?
Er, because its not mutilation and, as I've also replied to Dave below, has few effects and certainly none in the enjoyment or performance of making with the love
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
-
Oakman wrote:
The foreskin is the male equivalent of the hymen
Bollocks
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
_Maxxx_ wrote:
Bollocks
No, thats the ovaries...
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Who gave people the right to cut pieces of other peoples bodies away? Evolution is a wonderful thing, if the foreskin wasn't necessary, we wouldn't have one. The law is simple, they have banned female circumcision, and that is good, but is it not perhaps sexist? It implies that whilst it is unacceptable to mutilate a girl, the law says it is ok to do that to a boy. Consistency is a wonderful thing, don't you think.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
Evolution is a wonderful thing, if the foreskin wasn't necessary, we wouldn't have one.
And the apendix? :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
If it is barbaric genital mutialtion for girls, why is it not barbaric genital mutilation for boys?
Er, because its not mutilation and, as I've also replied to Dave below, has few effects and certainly none in the enjoyment or performance of making with the love
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
You did not read what I wrote: I was not referencing the many ways that patriarchal culture mutilates women's genitals: I was referencing the exact same procedure in women that is identical to male circumcision. That procedure has nothing to do with enjoyment or performance, and is still widedly condemned and illegal in many legal jurisdictions when done on girls.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Seriously, I am all for it.
But who gave you the right to decide for all the other parents? Removal of the foreskin has at least as much scientific evidence backing it as against it, and it is not the same as the removal of the clitoris which has been misnomered as female circumcision. The foreskin is the male equivalent of the hymen and while you may be proud to have kept yours intacta, it should not be a matter of interest to you what parents decide for their children, anymore than you should be involved in deciding what should be done with the placenta or umbilical cord - or do you think you have a right to pass laws about their disposal as well???
In real engineering, you do what works in practice, even if the theory says it fails. In social engineering, you do what theory says works, even if it fails in practice.
Oakman wrote:
The foreskin is the male equivalent of the hymen
No, it is the equivalent of the clitoral hood, which serves the same biological function of the foreskin. The tissue that in a woman forms the hymen in males forms the scrotum.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
The law is simple, they have banned female circumcision, and that is good, but is it not perhaps sexist?
It implies that whilst it is unacceptable to mutilate a girl, the law says it is ok to do that to a boyIf the two things were comparable you'd have a point, but they're not in any way. Whilst in the case of girls it really is an act of mutilation with boys its taking away a piece of skin the only real effects of which are to, over time, decrease sensitivity of the glans, (but not eradicate it or come anywhere close to), make it easier to clean and quite frankly decrease the likelyhood of a nasty zipper incident.
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
The foreskin is not merely a vestigial piece of skin: it is an organ in its own right that serves an important biological function. If you are unable to keep yourself clean or safe from zippers, that is your problem.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/26/ban-male-circumcision-proposed-calif-city/[^] ...even though it's a little bit off topic.
Steve Wellens
Anything coming from California is suspect. They went off the deep end years ago. Bought a piece of plywood the other day. Multiple stamps on on it informing me that This product may generate wood dust, a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer. If you look around, you'll see that California knows a lot of things no one else seems to know. Maybe they're just smarter...or something.
Never give aversion therapy to a masochist. The results are unpredictable. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
The foreskin is not merely a vestigial piece of skin: it is an organ in its own right that serves an important biological function. If you are unable to keep yourself clean or safe from zippers, that is your problem.
Not a problem for me at all, I was circumcised as a child for entirely medical reasons. So then, if you ban it entirely how do you manage cases where individuals are circumcised for entirely medical reasons, (i.e., the foreskin is too tight to be able to pull back), where if the operation isn't undertaken there can be serious consequences for the child? Quite frankly I can tell you I have experienced no adverse effects as I've got older and I've never had a complaint that I've been made aware of.
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
-
Not a problem for me at all, I was circumcised as a child for entirely medical reasons. So then, if you ban it entirely how do you manage cases where individuals are circumcised for entirely medical reasons, (i.e., the foreskin is too tight to be able to pull back), where if the operation isn't undertaken there can be serious consequences for the child? Quite frankly I can tell you I have experienced no adverse effects as I've got older and I've never had a complaint that I've been made aware of.
Rhys "I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees"
goblinTech wrote:
Quite frankly I can tell you I have experienced no adverse effects as I've got older and I've never had a complaint that I've been made aware of.
You wouldn't expect to. The risks of circumcision are very nearly entirely inherent to the procedure itself - 0.2 - 0.5% chance of bleeding, infection, scarring, cutting off the glans, etc. OTOH, the proposed benefits are individually much smaller and are accrued over the entire lifetime.
- F