PCEngine-FX.com

After reading the abortion thread, I decided to start a thread dealing with another controversial American issue: male infant circumcision. Is anyone else on here as against it as I am? Being one of the very few (and fortunate) Americans to be uncut, it's a topic you'll get into soon enough when you're old enough to find out that something is different about you (or rather, everyone else). I've briefly got into my stance on this a couple times on here before, but I'm really interested in hearing everyone else's. I really think circumcising an infant is against that child's rights with the only exceptions being religious or absolute medical reasons -- and this is coming from someone who's religion practices this more than anyone else!

I am circumcised even though I really don't see the point to it.  I have lived with it my whole life so I don't really know what the difference would be since my junk works just fine.  I am not Jewish so it wasn't done for religious reasons... I think it was just done because that's what is commonly accepted for whatever reason.  I am not jealous of those who are "uncut", though.  I doubt their sex lives are any better or anything.  Doing it for religious reasons is just stupid (and still against the child's rights since children are not allowed to choose their religion).

I'm really glad I don't remember the process.  Even something like a vasectomy freaks me out.  Keep all sharp objects AWAY!

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 03/31/2009, 06:26 PMDoing it for religious reasons is just stupid.

At least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason, opposed to the typical American routine circumcision, which is done to "fit in" or "look like daddy" or "it's cleaner". These American excuses are just ridiculous and serve nothing. Australia grew out of it's route circumcision phase and so did Britain's brief phase during WWII, why can't USA?

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:09 PMAfter reading the abortion thread, I decided to start a thread dealing with another controversial American issue: male infant circumcision. Is anyone else on here as against it as I am?

Yes! perhaps even moreso.

QuoteBeing one of the very few (and fortunate) Americans to be uncut,

Actually, it's not 'very few' - I think about 2/3rds of American men are circumcized, and the number of new infant circumcisions is lower than that, so that number will probably fall in the next few decades.

Oh yes, the numbers have been falling. Not as fast as it could (and should), but it's definitely been on a decline since the 70's and probably more so now with all the heated discussions that have taken place in recent years. From what I remember, only 30% of men from the west coast are circumcised now, which makes them the minority. The midwest is still the biggest offender!

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:29 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 03/31/2009, 06:26 PMDoing it for religious reasons is just stupid.

At least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason

No it doesn't. The point of circumcision was to discourage masturbation, which Abrahamic religions see as evil. (consider that its originators practice(d) it on 13 year olds, about the time that becomes interesting)
The nonsense reasons Americans come up with nowadays are just desperate attempts to justify a tradition.

Well seeing as it gained use in the early 1900's in the US, that's hardly "nowadays."

Quote from: nectarsis on 03/31/2009, 06:54 PMWell seeing as it gained use in the early 1900's in the US, that's hardly "nowadays."

Earlier this century, it was more explicitly about preventing masturbation (which they then euphemistically called 'hygeine'); when I say 'nowadays' I mean the last few decades.

Keranu this is an interesting question, especially for a Muslim. Your anarchist / libertarian political position seems very interesting in the context of your Islamic faith.

Does Islam favor libertarianism and individual rights or does Islam favor submission to authority and to the social values and customs espoused by those in authority?

What exactly is the role of parents in a Muslim society? Are Muslim parents supposed to give their children freedom to make their own choices? Or are parents supposed to indoctrinate their children into a certain cet of socio-religious values?

The Bible has this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2013:24;&version=31;) to say: Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

Those who circumcise their children for religoius reasons are trying to raise them as Muslim children, without giving them a choice, right?

Slice away, I say.

Quote from: guyjin on 03/31/2009, 06:52 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:29 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 03/31/2009, 06:26 PMDoing it for religious reasons is just stupid.

At least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason

No it doesn't. The point of circumcision was to discourage masturbation, which Abrahamic religions see as evil. (consider that its originators practice(d) it on 13 year olds, about the time that becomes interesting)
The nonsense reasons Americans come up with nowadays are just desperate attempts to justify a tradition.

Religious circumcision was never really done to discourage masturbation, those were just used as an excuse for circumsion; notably by the early 1900 American Christian example you posted. Again, a stupid reason to routinely perform the operation.

Quote from: rag-time4Keranu this is an interesting question, especially for a Muslim. Your anarchist / libertarian political position seems very interesting in the context of your Islamic faith.

Does Islam favor libertarianism and individual rights or does Islam favor submission to authority and to the social values and customs espoused by those in authority?

What exactly is the role of parents in a Muslim society? Are Muslim parents supposed to give their children freedom to make their own choices? Or are parents supposed to indoctrinate their children into a certain cet of socio-religious values?

The Bible has this to say: Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

Those who circumcise their children for religoius reasons are trying to raise them as Muslim children, without giving them a choice, right?

I should let you know that I don't believe in anarchy. I'm assuming you may be getting that impression because of my views on how to run an internet forum (and posting "ANARCHY FOR THE INTERNET"), but I don't actually believe in anarchy politically :) .

As I said in my opening post, I'm not opposed to infant circumcision done religiously or medically, necessarily. I don't really see circumcision as a requirement of Islam, especially when performed on infants, but I won't get in the way of religious people who practice infant circumcision because that's how they feel their religion should be practiced. But when it comes to places like America that routinely perform it without any real research on the matter, I'm completely against it.

Quote from: estebanSlice away, I say.

Slice away, as long as the child has a say. ;) And why on Earth shouldn't he?

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 07:46 PM

Quote from: guyjin on 03/31/2009, 06:52 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:29 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 03/31/2009, 06:26 PMDoing it for religious reasons is just stupid.

At least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason

No it doesn't. The point of circumcision was to discourage masturbation, which Abrahamic religions see as evil. (consider that its originators practice(d) it on 13 year olds, about the time that becomes interesting)
The nonsense reasons Americans come up with nowadays are just desperate attempts to justify a tradition.

Religious circumcision was never really done to discourage masturbation,

Then what is it for?

Quote from: esteban on 03/31/2009, 07:21 PMSlice away, I say.

Why?

I'll join Keranu as the second "no" vote. I guess we have more in common than just Shanghai!

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 07:46 PM

Quote from: rag-time4Keranu this is an interesting question, especially for a Muslim. Your anarchist / libertarian political position seems very interesting in the context of your Islamic faith.

Does Islam favor libertarianism and individual rights or does Islam favor submission to authority and to the social values and customs espoused by those in authority?

What exactly is the role of parents in a Muslim society? Are Muslim parents supposed to give their children freedom to make their own choices? Or are parents supposed to indoctrinate their children into a certain cet of socio-religious values?

The Bible has this to say: Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

Those who circumcise their children for religoius reasons are trying to raise them as Muslim children, without giving them a choice, right?

I should let you know that I don't believe in anarchy. I'm assuming you may be getting that impression because of my views on how to run an internet forum (and posting "ANARCHY FOR THE INTERNET"), but I don't actually believe in anarchy politically :) .

As I said in my opening post, I'm not opposed to infant circumcision done religiously or medically, necessarily. I don't really see circumcision as a requirement of Islam, especially when performed on infants, but I won't get in the way of religious people who practice infant circumcision because that's how they feel their religion should be practiced. But when it comes to places like America that routinely perform it without any real research on the matter, I'm completely against it.

Quote from: estebanSlice away, I say.

Slice away, as long as the child has a say. ;) And why on Earth shouldn't he?

So if I have your point of view right, circumcision is ok if it's part of Islamic tradition but not ok if it's part of secular American tradition?

Quote from: guyjin on 03/31/2009, 07:54 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 07:46 PM

Quote from: guyjin on 03/31/2009, 06:52 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:29 PM

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 03/31/2009, 06:26 PMDoing it for religious reasons is just stupid.

At least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason

No it doesn't. The point of circumcision was to discourage masturbation, which Abrahamic religions see as evil. (consider that its originators practice(d) it on 13 year olds, about the time that becomes interesting)
The nonsense reasons Americans come up with nowadays are just desperate attempts to justify a tradition.

Religious circumcision was never really done to discourage masturbation,

Then what is it for?

I can't speak for all religions of course, but in Judaism and Islam it symbolizes a covenent between man and god as it was with Abraham. You could debate what kind of extent this goes to, but I'm sure you won't find any Jewish or Islamic teaching that promotes circumcision in order to prevent masturbation -- that's just a early 1900's American Christian invention, which is responsible for the common occurence of routine infant circumcision in America today.

Quote from: natI'll join Keranu as the second "no" vote. I guess we have more in common than just Shanghai!

Yay! I was afraid I was going to be the only uncut American on the forums. I'm still waiting for the foreigners to overload the no votes :D .

Quote from: RagtimeSo if I have your point of view right, circumcision is ok if it's part of Islamic tradition but not ok if it's part of secular American tradition?

Correct, I believe it's okay for any significant religious tradition, even if I personally may not agree with it for the same reasons. I don't believe the secular American tradition is okay because parents obviously aren't educated on the subject and simply doing it because everyone else is. Though with decades to come, this probably won't even be an issue anymore because of the declining rates, as guyjin pointed out. I should also make clear that I'm not against circumcision if the decision was made by the owner himself.

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 09:28 PM

Quote from: RagtimeSo if I have your point of view right, circumcision is ok if it's part of Islamic tradition but not ok if it's part of secular American tradition?

Correct, I believe it's okay for any significant religious tradition, even if I personally may not agree with it for the same reasons. I don't believe the secular American tradition is okay because parents obviously aren't educated on the subject and simply doing it because everyone else is. Though with decades to come, this probably won't even be an issue anymore because of the declining rates, as guyjin pointed out. I should also make clear that I'm not against circumcision if the decision was made by the owner himself.

I think we're in agreement... I would agree that the secular American tradition is baseless now, for the most poart. Some might tie it to 'Judeo-Christian' heritage and tradition though...

Also, how do you define a 'significant religious tradition' as opposed to an insignificant one?

Quote from: rag-time4 on 04/01/2009, 01:09 AMAlso, how do you define a 'significant religious tradition' as opposed to an insignificant one?

I kinda had a feeling you would ask :mrgreen: . When I wrote that, I was thinking of religions that are well known to circumcise, like Islam and Judaism. If some new religion popped up that practiced circumcision, I might not be as keen of it until the religion has gained more acceptance, though I'm getting a little ahead of myself here. But this brings up something else I wanted to mention and that is that some religious circumcisions might be as baseless as an American one in that you're so accustomed to it being performed in your family's generations that you're doing it more to fit in with them rather than doing it with spiritual intention. Without that intention, you're just a man without a foreskin and a covenant.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/01/2009, 01:18 AM

Quote from: rag-time4 on 04/01/2009, 01:09 AMAlso, how do you define a 'significant religious tradition' as opposed to an insignificant one?

I kinda had a feeling you would ask :mrgreen: . When I wrote that, I was thinking of religions that are well known to circumcise, like Islam and Judaism. If some new religion popped up that practiced circumcision, I might not be as keen of it until the religion has gained more acceptance, though I'm getting a little ahead of myself here. But this brings up something else I wanted to mention and that is that some religious circumcisions might be as baseless as an American one in that you're so accustomed to it being performed in your family's generations that you're doing it more to fit in with them rather than doing it with spiritual intention. Without that intention, you're just a man without a foreskin and a covenant.

That's a great point! I was wondering just how 'well educated' the various communities are who engage in the ritual.

The two places where I grew up (Korea and the U.S.), circumcision is the norm.  They're just done during different periods in life -- US at infancy, Korea during adolescent years.  So I got it done as an adolescent just because of the social pressure, if anything else.

In retrospect, maybe it was a mistake, but meh -- I'll live.

Quote from: termis on 04/01/2009, 01:40 AMThe two places where I grew up (Korea and the U.S.), circumcision is the norm.  They're just done during different periods in life -- US at infancy, Korea during adolescent years.  So I got it done as an adolescent just because of the social pressure, if anything else.

In retrospect, maybe it was a mistake, but meh -- I'll live.

Is circumcision common in North Korea as well as South Korea?

I totally forgot about circumcision in Korea! When I think of non-Muslim Asian circumcision, I think of the Philippines. From what I know, Korean circumcision came to be from American soldier influence; kinda strange that they would perform it at a later age then.

If you guys are talking about South Korea why not say South Korea instead of just Korea? What about North Korea?

I wasn't sure if both practised it or not, that's a good question you asked.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/01/2009, 03:43 AMI wasn't sure if both practised it or not, that's a good question you asked.

Now you're torturing me with your British spelling!

Will the pain never cease??!?!

Please remember that Keranu is mildly retarded.

DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR what!?  :dance: :dance: :dance: ](*,) :dance: :dance: :dance:

Eh, who cares.  If the Jeffersons want to snip Billys little peepee, oh well.  Itll still feel nice for him when he gives it a good wackin', or when the girl next door comes over and does whatever to it.

lol.

Quote from: guest on 04/01/2009, 05:41 AMEh, who cares.  If the Jeffersons want to snip Billys little peepee, oh well.  Itll still feel nice for him when he gives it a good wackin', or when the girl next door comes over and does whatever to it.

lol.

Billy should care considering his parents didn't inform him about a change made to his body for no reason at all. Is it the end of the world? No. But it's still a decision that should be made by one's self. You wouldn't just go tattooing a tramp stamp on your baby daughter either just because her and her friends might stupidly get one when they're 16 either.

I would tattoo a tramp stamp on my baby daughter if my dipshit religion had that tradition, even if said daughter wanted no part of the loony cult later in her life.  IT'S OK IF RELIGION SAYS IT IS!

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 04/01/2009, 05:49 AMI would tattoo a tramp stamp on my baby daughter if my dipshit religion had that tradition, even if said daughter wanted no part of the loony cult later in her life.  IT'S OK IF RELIGION SAYS IT IS!

THIS.  =D> =D> =D>

Quote from: rag-time4 on 04/01/2009, 02:33 AMIf you guys are talking about South Korea why not say South Korea instead of just Korea? What about North Korea?

Generally, we don't distinguish ourselves apart, except in specific cases where it's necessary.  Just to give you an idea, if you ever look at a map in a Korean history/geography textbook, it'll always show the whole Korean peninsula.

However, in this case, you're right -- the distinction should've been made -- North Koreans do not practice circumcision.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/01/2009, 05:48 AMYou wouldn't just go tattooing a tramp stamp on your baby daughter either just because her and her friends might stupidly get one when they're 16 either.

Maybe I can tattoo my foreskin back on.

Never had it done, never will. Just say NO to genital mutilation! I have to agree that I think it's cruel to do something like that to a child before he can even choose, much less speak. In my opinion, fitting in is EXTREMELY overrated. Getting you to fit in is how people control your mind and actions.

Think about all the horrible things that have happened/are happening because people just wanted to fit in:

-Accepting slavery

-Accepting the idea that women are evil

-Accepting the idea that homosexuals are evil, and therefore, shouldn't have rights

-Acting like a cruel, sadistic monster to 'uncool' people so you can be 'cool'

-Pointing out small faults with the 'bad' ethnic groups

-Not pointing out huge faults with total assholes because they are of a different ethnic group

-Being politically correct, and therefore never being allowed to speak your true thoughts, because some random person MIGHT take offense

As you can see, if people would just stop worrying about what people might think, live outside of the box, and do what's right, even if it means losing a little popularity, things MIGHT be a little better (and I stress the word MIGHT, it's no guarantee) in this world.

And BTW, people who 'stop liking you' because you do one thing that's against their beliefs, even if you both know you're right, are no friends of yours.

Also, I noticed that a few of the things I mentioned above were sometimes thought to be OK because it's in the bible. Jesus, by that logic, you could say that it's OK to do ANYTHING. I mean, the bible's a big book, with lots of stories to tell.

I know you might think that I'm trashing on religion here, but that's not true. Religion has done some incredibly wonderful things. It has given people who feel hopeless hope. It has given us some great advice that still applies today. It has been an inspiration to billions of people, past and present. My only beef with religion is that sometimes, people will do horrible things because they think it's what God wants.

I actually like the idea of a God. I may not put my 100% faith in him (or is it a her?) at all times, but I do try to keep an open mind.

If you've read to here, the end of my rant, thank you. If you have anything that you want to say about it, please do so. I won't hate you for a little criticism or differing views.

Quote from: Arjak on 04/01/2009, 03:32 PM-Acting like a cruel, sadistic monster to 'uncool' people so you can be 'cool'

-Pointing out small faults with the 'bad' ethnic groups

-Not pointing out huge faults with total assholes because they are of a different ethnic group

-Being politically correct, and therefore never being allowed to speak your true thoughts, because some random person MIGHT take offense

I find it amusing that you chose to group these 4 opposites together. you can't possibly fulfill them all at once.

Quote from: guyjin on 04/01/2009, 03:58 PM

Quote from: Arjak on 04/01/2009, 03:32 PM-Acting like a cruel, sadistic monster to 'uncool' people so you can be 'cool'

-Pointing out small faults with the 'bad' ethnic groups

-Not pointing out huge faults with total assholes because they are of a different ethnic group

-Being politically correct, and therefore never being allowed to speak your true thoughts, because some random person MIGHT take offense

I find it amusing that you chose to group these 4 opposites together. you can't possibly fulfill them all at once.

Is it possible to have 4 opposites? :-k

Quote from: guyjin on 04/01/2009, 03:58 PM

Quote from: Arjak on 04/01/2009, 03:32 PM-Acting like a cruel, sadistic monster to 'uncool' people so you can be 'cool'

-Pointing out small faults with the 'bad' ethnic groups

-Not pointing out huge faults with total assholes because they are of a different ethnic group

-Being politically correct, and therefore never being allowed to speak your true thoughts, because some random person MIGHT take offense

I find it amusing that you chose to group these 4 opposites together. you can't possibly fulfill them all at once.

I guess people just need to find a balance between the four. They may be opposites, but none of them are a good place to be.

I'm snipped and I don't care.  It works just fine, thanks.

Quote from: Keranu on 03/31/2009, 06:29 PMAt least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason, opposed to the typical American routine circumcision, which is done to "fit in" or "look like daddy" or "it's cleaner". These American excuses are just ridiculous and serve nothing.

Doing it for Jesus/Mohammad/Zeus/Dr. Seuss is just as ridiculous as any other arbitrary reason.  Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions.  Are all Muslims so intolerant?  :P

The following is not an argument for circumcision, as it unarguably has drawbacks, but rather repudiation of the notion that it 'being cleaner' is a farce.  It is medical fact that it lessens the chance of contracting bladder infections, infections of the foreskin, and penile cancer.  The former two can mostly be avoided with proper hygiene and the latter is quite rare (with the increased risk only being a slight increase anyway), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference. 

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 04/01/2009, 05:49 AMI would tattoo a tramp stamp on my baby daughter if my dipshit religion had that tradition, even if said daughter wanted no part of the loony cult later in her life.  IT'S OK IF RELIGION SAYS IT IS!

Thanks for that.  =D>

QuoteAre all Muslims so intolerant?

Keranu's examples have made me hate Islam.  Seriously.

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 04/02/2009, 04:26 PMKeranu's examples have made me hate Islam.  Seriously.

9/11 did it for me.  Fucking terrorists.

Quote from: guest link=msg=111786Doing it for Jesus/Mohammad/Zeus/Dr. Seuss is just as ridiculous as any other arbitrary reason.  Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions.  Are all Muslims so intolerant?  :P

I didn't full explain my reasoning regarding this, so I'll forgive your misinterpretation. As I've said, I personally don't believe in infant circumcision even from a religious point of view, HOWEVER I would allow it legally; the reason being is because if it weren't allowed, I don't think there would be any way to control all of the religious outrage. I do believe there are alternatives from a religious point of view, but that likely won't stop many religious people from feeling that the government has limited their religious freedom. So yes I do agree with you that doing it for religious reasons is as ridiculous as the reasons I've already mentioned.

To clarify more on what I meant restricting infant circumcisions to only certain religions, the reason being is that someone could easily claim to have received revelation from god and he demanded that their kids be circumcised. I never said I wouldn't allow this, I just said I wouldn't be as open in a case like this, at least until the religion has gained more acceptance or something like that. Don't forget that I'm totally not against circumcision if it's done with the child's consent.

Quote from: NecromancerThe following is not an argument for circumcision, as it unarguably has drawbacks, but rather repudiation of the notion that it 'being cleaner' is a farce.  It is medical fact that it lessens the chance of contracting bladder infections, infections of the foreskin, and penile cancer.  The former two can mostly be avoided with proper hygiene and the latter is quite rare (with the increased risk only being a slight increase anyway), but that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference.

I know you're not making a pro-circumcision arguement, but I am going to debate this regardless since these points had to be brought up sooner or later. When it comes to any studies regarding circumcision, whether for or against it, I take it with a grain of salt. The reason being is that there often comes up another study contradicting the other: a popular pro-circumcision study stated that circumcision reduces the chance of contracting HIV, but later a study came showing that it didn't; a popular anti-circumcision study stated that circumcision reduces sensitivity greatly, but later a study came showing it didn't. Regardless of whether or not the studies indicating that circumcision lowers the risk of urinary tract infection, penile cancer, etc... is true, it's totally an insignifant advantage as the percentages if I recall were very low, thus I believe is still no where near worth circumcising an infant without his permission. If something isn't broke, don't fix it.

Quote from: Joe Redifer on 04/02/2009, 04:26 PM

QuoteAre all Muslims so intolerant?

Keranu's examples have made me hate Islam.  Seriously.

I hope this is typical Joe sarcasm, but ironically I don't think it is. My examples make you hate Islam because I'm more open than the usual Muslim? Because I believe all people's beliefs and lack of beliefs should be respected? Because I'm not pressuring you or anyone else to convert to Islam? But don't take my word to judge Islam, take the Quran and Sunnah (which most religious bashers are too lazy to do).

I'm happy to say that I've "converted" many religious bashers to "religious respecters". As I've always said, I care more about people's respect than their beliefs.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/02/2009, 08:24 PMI'm happy to say that I've "converted" many religious bashers to "religious respecters". As I've always said, I care more about people's respect than their beliefs.

=D>

lol reminds me of that shit in india where they whip babies off roofs to do something about a tradition.

THAT, is jacked.

I am circumsized....I dont see an issue with it and personally am glad I am! I remember the first time I saw an uncircumcised penis and it freaked me out...I was in 7th grade (First grade you start athletics) and was changing in the locker room when someone had walked in front of me and I was thinking in my mind what the hell is wrong with his dick...I think it looks disgusting...Strangely I have had many comments from women on how "pretty of a penis I have". So neways I believe my parents circumsized me because its just what people do....

Quote from: override on 04/02/2009, 11:49 PMI am circumsized....I dont see an issue with it and personally am glad I am!

I'm happy you're glad too, but I'm not happy that it wasn't your decision (or was it?). Some of the biggest "intactavists" are circumcised people, who wish every day they weren't circumcised. It's possible to restore your foreskin and many people successfully have, but it lacks nerve endings and doesn't keep the glans lubricated as well as a natural foreskin, not to mention that depending on how tightly cut you were, foreskin restoration stretching can take a long time.

Quote from: overrideSo neways I believe my parents circumsized me because its just what people do....

This is exactly why I'm against RIC (routine infant circumcision), because "its just what people do" has no logic to it. Just as the average American will believe in 90% of the crap on TV, they will also blindly have their baby boy circumcised because they figured it's the right thing to do if it's done every generation. At least when parents decide to have their daughter's ears pierced, they do it when she's old enough to walk around and think. Again if something isn't broke, simply don't fix it.

Now I have a interesting question to ask. I am surprised to see most of the circumcised posters here saying that they don't necessarily think RIC is the right thing to do since usually cut Americans are pretty defensize about it. So my question is, to those who voted "yes" in the poll, would you circumcise your son if you have one? Or if you already have one, did you?

Quote from: KeranuAs I've said, I personally don't believe in infant circumcision even from a religious point of view

OH????

Quote from: KeranuI really think circumcising an infant is against that child's rights with the only exceptions being religious or absolute medical reasons

Quote from: KeranuAt least doing it for religious reasons actually serves a reason

Retard.

You didn't read my posts thouroughly, moderator.

Quote from: My Awesome Self...the reason being is because if it weren't allowed, I don't think there would be any way to control all of the religious outrage.

Quote from: My Awesome Self AgainI don't believe the secular American tradition is okay because parents obviously aren't educated on the subject and simply doing it because everyone else is.

The above implying that religious people perform ritual circumcisions with knowledge and intention on the subject for the bettering of their fath, while most American parents don't really know why they do it other than because their parents did it to them.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 12:30 AM

Quote from: override on 04/02/2009, 11:49 PMI am circumsized....I don't see an issue with it and personally am glad I am!

I'm happy you're glad too, but I'm not happy that it wasn't your decision (or was it?). Some of the biggest "intactavists" are circumcised people, who wish every day they weren't circumcised. It's possible to restore your foreskin and many people successfully have, but it lacks nerve endings and doesn't keep the glans lubricated as well as a natural foreskin, not to mention that depending on how tightly cut you were, foreskin restoration stretching can take a long time.

Quote from: overrideSo neways I believe my parents circumsized me because its just what people do....

This is exactly why I'm against RIC (routine infant circumcision), because "its just what people do" has no logic to it. Just as the average American will believe in 90% of the crap on TV, they will also blindly have their baby boy circumcised because they figured it's the right thing to do if it's done every generation. At least when parents decide to have their daughter's ears pierced, they do it when she's old enough to walk around and think. Again if something isn't broke, simply don't fix it.

Now I have a interesting question to ask. I am surprised to see most of the circumcised posters here saying that they don't necessarily think RIC is the right thing to do since usually cut Americans are pretty defensize about it. So my question is, to those who voted "yes" in the poll, would you circumcise your son if you have one? Or if you already have one, did you?

First off Id like to point out that I kind of find it funny how you contradict yourself in recent post as show by Joe Redifer!  #-o

That doesnt matter anyways....You seem to have a passion for this....Maybe a little to much too! It seems as if you would kill someone that disagreed with you and had a heated argument over this subject. Maybe it would be wise for you to research into this a little more on your own rather than taking peoples opinions. I can only imagine how many angry you get when responding back to some of these post... ](*,) Your typing so fast you constantly are haveing to use backspace, instead of a calm clicking sound of the keys you hear a hard tapping with each fingerstroke :-({|=, your heartbeat becomes instantly doubled in speed, its like the HULK :mrgreen:. I wonder if he was circumsized? OFCOURSE I might be completely off and well you know its cool if I am.....Hope no hard feelings come out of this. :D

If you feel this strongly about it by all means get a campaign started....You could say "You can do it, Yes you can, Let your child have his foreskin!!"

Quote from: Keranu on 04/02/2009, 08:18 PMI didn't full explain my reasoning regarding this, so I'll forgive your misinterpretation.

Thanks for the gracious pardon, but it wasn't necessary.  You made no argument about allowing circumcision for religious purposes as a protection of people's first amendment rights, so how could I have misinterpreted an unmade assertion?

Quote from: Keranu on 04/02/2009, 08:18 PMTo clarify more on what I meant restricting infant circumcisions to only certain religions, the reason being is that someone could easily claim to have received revelation from god and he demanded that their kids be circumcised. I never said I wouldn't allow this, I just said I wouldn't be as open in a case like this, at least until the religion has gained more acceptance or something like that.

Hypocrite.  You're entire religion is based on one man's revelations from God (secondhand, no less).  Was Muhammad just a nutter until some magical number of people started following the Qur'an?

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 12:30 AMSo my question is, to those who voted "yes" in the poll, would you circumcise your son if you have one?

Probably not.  If I weren't circumcised, it'd be a full footlong (I make do with only 11.75"), and who wouldn't want their son to be better man than they?

Quote from: override on 04/03/2009, 08:56 AMFirst off Id like to point out that I kind of find it funny how you contradict yourself in recent post as show by Joe Redifer!  #-o

Did you not read my follow up? Granted my second point was a bit sketchy, but at least I elaborated.

Quote from: overrideThat doesnt matter anyways....You seem to have a passion for this....Maybe a little to much too! It seems as if you would kill someone that disagreed with you and had a heated argument over this subject. Maybe it would be wise for you to research into this a little more on your own rather than taking peoples opinions. I can only imagine how many angry you get when responding back to some of these post... ](*,) Your typing so fast you constantly are haveing to use backspace, instead of a calm clicking sound of the keys you hear a hard tapping with each fingerstroke :-({|=, your heartbeat becomes instantly doubled in speed, its like the HULK :mrgreen:. I wonder if he was circumsized? OFCOURSE I might be completely off and well you know its cool if I am.....Hope no hard feelings come out of this. :D

I think you are a little too upset since you don't have a reason to defend your infant circumcision. Regardless, I appreciate the humor.

Quote from: overrideIf you feel this strongly about it by all means get a campaign started....You could say "You can do it, Yes you can, Let your child have his foreskin!!"

There are numerous anti-circumcision campaigns and people who follow them are known as "intactavists". Some of them are pretty wild people, much more heated about it than me, but I think they have changed a lot of American's minds.

Quote from: NecromancerThanks for the gracious pardon, but it wasn't necessary.  You made no argument about allowing circumcision for religious purposes as a protection of people's first amendment rights, so how could I have misinterpreted an unmade assertion?

Fair enough.

Quote from: NecromancerHypocrite.  You're entire religion is based on one man's revelations from God (secondhand, no less).  Was Muhammad just a nutter until some magical number of people started following the Qur'an?

Again, I believe you are taking one thing that I said, exagerrating, and ignoring the rest of what I said. Quote me where I ever said I would never let a new religion practice infant circumcision. I've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it. And again, I don't necessarily approve of religious infant circumcisions to begin with, but I would allow it for reasons I've already mentioned.

Quote from: NecromancerProbably not.  If I weren't circumcised, it'd be a full footlong (I make do with only 11.75"), and who wouldn't want their son to be better man than they?

Funny thing actually, I've heard both sides claim that performing or not performing circumcision makes you bigger :P . I guess having a foreskin would technically make you bigger...

Quote from: KeranuI think you are a little too upset since you don't have a reason to defend your infant circumcision. Regardless, I appreciate the humor.

I am not upset at all....I didnt even show a hint of being upset in my post  :-k. I have not reason to be upset I have a perfectly fine working penis! No complaints here...Im glad Im circumsized lol I'd hate to have to look down at that ugly foreskin all the time!  :-&

Quote from: override on 04/03/2009, 03:53 PM

Quote from: KeranuI think you are a little too upset since you don't have a reason to defend your infant circumcision. Regardless, I appreciate the humor.

I am not upset at all....I didnt even show a hint of being upset in my post  :-k. I have not reason to be upset I have a perfectly fine working penis! No complaints here...Im glad Im circumsized lol I'd hate to have to look down at that ugly foreskin all the time!  :-&

I think this post is proof that you're upset :P .

In regards to foreskin being ugly, this always strikes me as interesting considering the foreskin is something every (well, unless you have aposthia) man is born with, so to criticize something as natural as that is just silly to me. Have you ever wondered that perhaps maybe, just maybe out of the 80% of uncut males in the world, that one of them thinks a circumcised penis looks like a mutilated mess? Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better? If so, I challenge you to visit here (non-porn site, just so mods know). If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good, but I still dare you to take a look at that page :) .

Whether you're happy that you don't have a foreskin or not is not the main issue of my argument though. My arguement is that the choice to be circumcised should have been yours instead of your parents. There are several cut men who are extremely displeased that the decision wasn't given to them, such as Howard Stern.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMAgain, I believe you are taking one thing that I said, exaggerating, and ignoring the rest of what I said.

What did I exaggerate or remove from context?

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMQuote me where I ever said I would never let a new religion practice infant circumcision.

You first.  Show me where I intimated that you said something to that effect.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMI've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it. And again, I don't necessarily approve of religious infant circumcisions to begin with, but I would allow it for reasons I've already mentioned.

You've stated repeatedly that you believe ritual circumcision to be more acceptable for established religions, so I pointed out the hypocrisy in treating religions differently (your own religion was once unestablished, yet I doubt you'd argue that it was any less valid).  They all have to start somewhere, so I see no reason to hold a new/minor religion to a higher standard - if members of a new religion have to show sincerity before you'd deem circumcision to be equally acceptable, then why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 04:07 PMWould you argue that all circumcised penises look better?

I'd say that the penis (cut or not) is unattractive and utilitarian in appearance.

Quote from: guest on 04/03/2009, 05:25 PM

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMAgain, I believe you are taking one thing that I said, exaggerating, and ignoring the rest of what I said.

What did I exaggerate or remove from context?

You were exagerrating the "might" in my "I might not be as keen of it until..."  sentence and ignorning that I don't personally approve of religous infant circumcision (just allow them under law).

Quote from: Necromancer

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMQuote me where I ever said I would never let a new religion practice infant circumcision.

You first.  Show me where I intimated that you said something to that effect.

"Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions."

This is implying that my "might", mentioned above, means yes.

Quote from: Necromancer

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMI've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it. And again, I don't necessarily approve of religious infant circumcisions to begin with, but I would allow it for reasons I've already mentioned.

You've stated repeatedly that you believe ritual circumcision to be more acceptable for established religions, so I pointed out the hypocrisy in treating religions differently (your own religion was once unestablished, yet I doubt you'd argue that it was any less valid).  They all have to start somewhere, so I see no reason to hold a new/minor religion to a higher standard - if members of a new religion have to show sincerity before you'd deem circumcision to be equally acceptable, then why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?

Good point, but contrary to what you think I would argue my own religion when it wasn't established. In fact I don't see why I wouldn't. There were many people in the time of Mohammad (pbuh) who initially thought of him as a loon before accepting the religion he preached.

Regarding "why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?", I've already went into that in this post. So again, I am agreeing with you to degrees.

Quote from: Necromancer

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 04:07 PMWould you argue that all circumcised penises look better?

I'd say that the penis (cut or not) is unattractive and utilitarian in appearance.

I already beat you to that:

Quote from: My Awesome Self Strikes BackIf we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good...

Quote from: KeranuI think this post is proof that you're upset :P

QuoteIn regards to foreskin being ugly, this always strikes me as interesting considering the foreskin is something every (well, unless you have aposthia) man is born with, so to criticize something as natural as that is just silly to me. Have you ever wondered that perhaps maybe, just maybe out of the 80% of uncut males in the world, that one of them thinks a circumcised penis looks like a mutilated mess? Would you argue that all circumcised penises look better? If so, I challenge you to visit here (non-porn site, just so mods know). If we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good, but I still dare you to take a look at that page :) .

Whether you're happy that you don't have a foreskin or not is not the main issue of my argument though. My arguement is that the choice to be circumcised should have been yours instead of your parents. There are several cut men who are extremely displeased that the decision wasn't given to them, such as Howard Stern.

Well I infact did check out the website and man those are some fucked up looking dicks! :shock:

As much as you want to think I am upset....I have no reason to be! You are right this is not the reason why you started this topic....All in all its cool and I can understand you think it is odd that people say things of that such because ofcourse your not for circumcision or atleast thats as if it seems....So the same goes for me I am cut and always have been since I was born and cut! So for me to think that someone thinks it is right to not be, is weird for me to hear....To be frank I honestly think this whole topic is kinda weird but interesting....Another thing is that I have no reason to lie to you about how I feel. I dont know you and you dont know me...Im not getting anything out of lieing to you but a response of hey you obviously are lieing and feel this way not that way....It pertains no interest to me to not be honest with how I feel.

I'm just messing with you about the whole upset thing, no worries. :)

When you're uncircumcised and find out that it's not the norm in your society, you tend to investigate the issue a lot. It's a very fascinating discussion for me and I enjoy everyone's debate here regarding it. You guys might not believe me, but I think even if I were cut as a baby, I'd still be against it and restoring my foreskin; I guess I tend to be rebellious.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PMYou were exaggerating the "might" in my "I might not be as keen of it until..."  sentence...

Consult a dictionary for the word exaggerate; I disregarded the word, since it didn't seem to be the crux of the point being made.  Subsequent posts seem to have shown that assertion to be correct, considering there's no 'maybe' to be had:

Quote from: Keranu on 04/02/2009, 08:18 PMTo clarify more on what I meant restricting infant circumcisions to only certain religions, the reason being is that someone could easily claim to have received revelation from god and he demanded that their kids be circumcised. I never said I wouldn't allow this, I just said I wouldn't be as open in a case like this, at least until the religion has gained more acceptance or something like that. Don't forget that I'm totally not against circumcision if it's done with the child's consent.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 03:43 PMI've only said that until said religion has gained more acceptance, in other words shown that it is sincere about it's religious beliefs rather than just using it as an excuse to circumcise their son, then I wouldn't be as open with it as religions that are well known to practice it.

----

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PM... and ignoring that I don't personally approve of religious infant circumcision (just allow them under law).

I acknowledged your argument of allowing circumcision solely as protection of first amendment rights in my first post after the assertion was made.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PM"Equally ridiculous is you limiting its acceptability to only certain special religions."

This is implying that my "might", mentioned above, means yes.

In no way is the quoted sentence equivalent to 'never let a new religion practice infant circumcision'; here's a tip: limit does not equal forbid.  Why are you arguing this wishy-washy 'might' anyway?  The whole point of that sentence was to ridicule your treatment of established religions differently than others, and you've since reaffirmed that you believe different treatment to be appropriate.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PMGood point, but contrary to what you think I would argue my own religion when it wasn't established. In fact I don't see why I wouldn't. There were many people in the time of Mohammad (pbuh) who initially thought of him as a loon before accepting the religion he preached.

Great.  Then your beliefs are nothing but horse hockey (Christianity is centuries older and has more followers).

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PMRegarding "why shouldn't members of older religions be required to prove their sincerity?", I've already went into that in this post (https://www.pcengine-fx.com/forums/index.php?topic=6663.msg111563#msg111563). So again, I am agreeing with you to degrees.

That post only explains what you meant by 'significant religious tradition' and admits that there is insincerity in established religions as well.  There's nothing there that explains why established religions need not prove sincerity, nor does it advocate that everyone should prove sincerity.

Quote from: Keranu on 04/03/2009, 06:11 PMI already beat you to that:

Quote from: My Awesome Self Strikes BackIf we consider ourself as straight males, then maybe we shouldn't be arguing what makes a penis look good...

What exactly did you beat me to?  This doesn't answer the question of which looks better: cut or uncut.

I think that "god" would be against circumcision. This "god" that the bible speaks of seems to hate when humans modify their bodies. How can a circumcision be "a covenant between man and god"? If "god" is/was a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, then why would it create something faulty? Why would it create something that needed revision? How does cutting off a piece of skin bring you closer to it?

Quote from: turbo D on 04/05/2009, 06:20 AMI think that "god" would be against circumcision. This "god" that the bible speaks of seems to hate when humans modify their bodies. How can a circumcision be "a covenant between man and god"? If "god" is/was a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, then why would it create something faulty? Why would it create something that needed revision? How does cutting off a piece of skin bring you closer to it?

I have to agree but in the end its not gonnna matter if your circumsized or not that determines whether or not you get into heaven....Im a christian man and have 2 tats, I have pierced my body, but all that is overlooked in the end! Otherwise this is a good point to make if your against circumcision....

QuoteIm a christian man and have 2 tats, I have pierced my body, but all that is overlooked in the end!

You can get into heaven just as long as you regret all of your sins.  So you can do anything you want during your life, just regret it all real quick-like at the end you'll be A-OK.  God is pretty stupid and he is easily duped.

WOW! I cant believe you just said that......Thats fucked up....God should be GOD...Always caps! Your a fuck nut if you think "GOD is pretty stupid and he is easily duped!"

Any man who willfully has his son circumcised deserves to have his penis and balls cut off.
Any woman who willfully has her son circumcised deserves to have her clitoris cut off and her vagina sewn up.
That's about all I have to say on the subject.

Quote from: overrideThats fucked up....God should be GOD...Always caps!

SHIT!  Oh well, I always knew I'd burn.