Circumcision ban?

Johnny - posted on 12/17/2010

That saddens me Sherri. Are you sure you don't have something to share with us? ;-)

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

Okay honestly didn't know that is what it was called and I can honestly say I never studied his genitals.

Chatty - posted on 12/17/2010

*bangs her head off the desk*

Sherri, you're hilarious -- I almost spit out my drink!

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

Don't know what that is??

Isobel - posted on 12/17/2010

does the statue of David turn you off? cause...not me ;)

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

Jerk!! :)

Chatty - posted on 12/17/2010

You don't say...? *giggles*

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

Nope never ever I am pretty positive I would know. Since the only men I have ever been with I dated for a length of time and not every man was erect everytime I saw him.

Isobel - posted on 12/17/2010

when the penis is erect...there is almost no difference, sooooo, I'm thinking maybe you HAVE been with an uncirced guy and didn't know it ;)

Charlie - posted on 12/17/2010

Yeah majority of men where I am from ( and worldwide ) are intact , none of them who I have experienced have ever smelled but then again my standards are high enough to include men who shower .

Erin - posted on 12/17/2010

I think the differences from the woman's perspective are minimal (mainly the natural lubrication provided by the foreskin). Unfortuntely, the same can't be said for the man's experience.

Nikkole - posted on 12/17/2010

yep there is not much of a difference at all actually well i dont think!

Erin - posted on 12/17/2010

How can you know it turns you off when you have never seen one? You do realise that once they are ready to go, you can barely tell the difference, right?

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

I know that it turns me off. I have never seen nor really have any interest in seeing an intact man.

Erin - posted on 12/17/2010

April I assume your husband is cut?

Being an Aussie, I have encountered both. The only reason an intact man would smell is if he doesn't shower regularly. I think the circ'd male population cling to this myth because it makes them feel better about what they have lost. Kind of like..'oh yeah my parents violated my body and my rights, but at least I don't stink and can get laid'.

Nikkole - posted on 12/17/2010

@April Deamond my husband is not circumsised and his penis does nort smell actually the whole 8yrs we have been together its not smelled bad once it smells like his body wash thats it or after work his entire body smells like oil! And believe me i am not at all not turned on by my husbands penis(hence the 2 kids and us being like rabbits ;)!!!!!!!!!!! My husbands body is perfect in every way to me!!! And how would your husband know it turns women off and it smells??

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

According to your husband's beliefs, only 15% of the male population is getting laid...



We do have this lovely invention...called water... it can even come in toasty warm out of a shower spigot.



Does your husband know that the female prepuce also produces smegma, which is epithelial cells mixed with sebum and that the labia are covered in apocrine sweat glands? Let's also not forget stretchy egg-white cervical mucus and non-fertile day lotiony sticky cervical mucus. Yes. Female genitalia are picture-perfect spic-an-span.

April - posted on 12/17/2010

Back to the actual debate...my husband thinks uncir'd penises are gross and insists that most women are turned off by them. He said urine gets trapped inside the foreskin and makes a stink, therefore turning off the female sexual partner. In his mind: they're ugly, gross, and apparently they smell??

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

Yeah, the term 'troll' doesn't refer at all to the mythical creature. Pretty sure it's based on a nautical term. Sometimes posts can be so inflammatory, outwardly emotional, etc. that they lead readers to believe the poster is a troll. Charley did admit that she was reconsidering her position on circumcision though. It does seem odd though that she would be so vehemently pro to the point of using the term 'chopping penises' and all of a sudden change her tune. Who knows.

Rebecca - posted on 12/17/2010

Not to mention the fact that she told someone else to kiss her ass...that's not exactly debate material. When I called her a troll, I mean exactly the definition cited by Loureen and Krista -- she (or he) is deliberately posting absurd statements to try to get a reaction out of people, not to engage in an actual debate (e.g., the "penis chopping" example).

Krista - posted on 12/17/2010

People are allowed to post all they want. However, if someone's spelling, punctuation and grammar are so abysmal as to render their posts just about impossible to understand, then it makes for a very difficult debate.

And I'm not sure if calling someone a troll is considered a personal attack or not. If you're speaking about the ugly mythical creature who lives under bridges and harasses goats, gruff or otherwise, then yes, I think that would definitely be a personal attack. If you are accusing them of "trolling", (deliberately posting provocative statements for no other reason than to stir the pot), then I'm really not sure. Charley's statement about "chopping penises" DID seem needlessly provocative, so I can see why some people would come to the conclusion that she wasn't being sincere, but was simply looking to rile people up.

Charlie - posted on 12/17/2010

A troll is an internet term for people who purposefully flame threads to get a reaction .

Sherri - posted on 12/17/2010

However, everyone jumped on her for not being able to write correctly. How positively petty can we get? So for now on if someone doesn't spell correctly or use proper punctuation they shouldn't be allowed to post? Isn't that considered a personal attack by calling someone a troll by the way?

Chatty - posted on 12/17/2010

Not sure why you singled me out, Charley? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who called you a troll. Your posts are irritating and confusing to read.

Krista - posted on 12/17/2010

@Clarissa: I'll summarize the last 42 pages for you.

1. Any medical benefits to circumcision are negligible and are negated, if not outweighed, by the risks involved in the procedure.
2. Most penile infections that do take place in uncircumcised boys is because the parents or doctors make the mistake of forcing the foreskin back to clean it, which causes tears, and hence, infection.
3. Circumcision rates are plummeting, so the "different"-looking ones will actually be those kids who WERE circumcised.
4. And even if they weren't, what kind of message are we sending to our sons when we cut off a piece of their body as soon as they're born so that they will fit in with their peers? We tell our girls to love themselves the way they are, and to not damage their bodies to "fit in", but then we damage our boys' bodies for that same purpose. It's utterly illogical.

There...I just saved you a metric crapload of reading.

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

For Clarissa: go back and read previous 42 pages.

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

I think what happened, Charley, is that others saw your previous posts and were arguing them and didn't see that you had changed your opinon. It was an error of not reading the last post first. I'm not sure many people saw that you are seeing things differently. That can be frustrating.

Clarissa - posted on 12/17/2010

I completely agree withit. i had my son circumcised for a couple reasons. The first being to prevent infections. And you have to think about how your son is going to feel in the future and how he will look "different". I believe its the parents choice for the most part. And i honestly dont think your child is going to mad at you for circumsize him, epecially when he gets older and becomes sexually active. So i do not support a ban.

Krista - posted on 12/17/2010

Yeah, I wasn't comparing a foreskin to testicular cancer. I've already explained that the reason for the hypothetical missing testicle is irrelevant.

Okay, let me rephrase it, 'cause you're getting all hung up on the cancer thing.

Let's say your husband is missing his left earlobe. He was born without it.

You have a baby. Do you think it is logical to want to have your baby's earlobe amputated so that his ears will look like Daddy's?

Charlie - posted on 12/17/2010

not sure who you are talking too , I was merely posting information on the biblical
poV :D.

Charley - posted on 12/17/2010

wtf i agree wit u and admit its wrong and still get ganged up on<

Charlie - posted on 12/17/2010

In regards to the bible .
Christians are not bound by Old Testament practices. Many people now realize that there were many customs and practices that were common in Old Testament times, such as burning up birds and animals as ritual sacrifice, which may have made sense to those people at that time, but have little relevancy or acceptability today.

What does the New Testament say about circumcision?

Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, rendering all of the Old Testament practices, including the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, null and void.

When the Gospel was to be spread to the Gentile world, during the time of St. Paul, circumcision of Gentile converts was a matter of intense debate. Circumcision was dangerous, painful, and culturally repugnant to the Greeks and Romans. Early Christian church authorities quickly decided that circumcision was unnecessary.

"For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we can wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." Galatians 5:1-6

"It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." Galatians 6:12-16.

"Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh." Philippians 3:2-3.

There is no place in the Bible that states that a male is cleaner if he is circumcised. There are, however, many places in which the concept of circumcision is used metaphorically. In Deuteronomy 10:16 people are admonished to "circumcise the foreskins of their hearts." Jeremiah 6:10 berates the unrepentant who cannot hear because their "ears are uncircumcised." In Acts 7:51, St. Stephen declared "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Ghost." And in Romans 2:29 St. Paul states "He is a Jew, that is one inwardly: and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter."

Much of this sounds weird to modern day people, but the writers were simply using a concept that would have had meaning to the people at that time. They were not proclaiming that there was actually any value or purification to cutting off any part of the body, but were admonishing people to apply that type of belief to their inner selves instead.

Isobel - posted on 12/17/2010

They're not comparing circumcision to nut cancer! They are saying that it's ridiculous to cut off a part of your child's body to make them look like somebody else...gawd

Toni - posted on 12/17/2010

Educating your children is in no way comparable to removing healthy parts of them! Oh and you cannot force a child to learn, you can send them to school but if they do not want to learn they will not, so they get a choice in it - they do not get a choice in RIC!

Charley - posted on 12/17/2010

i wouldnt do the micro chip thing either

Nikkole - posted on 12/17/2010

A GPS micro chip thats stupid! I would never put anything foreign into my kids unless i had to (like vaccinations) parents should watch there children better and they wouldn't get taken especially in stores or letting them play outside by themselves! And i DID circumcised my son and i WISH i would not have i feel HORRIBLE for doing it but i was soo miss informed by my mother and everyone around me (which isnt there fault entirely they were not informed either) BUT if i had it to do over i wouldn't have my son didn't get cut he had a plastic ring put around his penis so he didn't really cry BUT the poor little thing was swollen and purple for 4days i felt so horrible! My husband is not circumcised and he has NO problem with his just that he is different than most his friends but i like him just the way he is! I have changed a LOT of my views on parenting and taking care of my child since i have joined COM and i think it is a good thing because being informed on everything is NOT a bad thing!

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

I wouldn't get my child microchipped...anyways.

Charley, there is no shame in not having the correct information at the time. We do the best with what we have. The key is doing better once we do have that information.

Charley - posted on 12/17/2010

what is your outlook on this in the state of ga they are trying to pass a law where you can get a gps micro chip inserted under their skins so if they r kidnapped oh and im not going to argue anymore i would possible consider not cirum my next you all have points there is no reason to get it done maybe i should have been educated before i had my son

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

I have a permanent dent in my forehead.

She is NOT comparing it to testicular cancer. She is comparing the loss of an organ to the loss of another organ.

Charley - posted on 12/17/2010

but comparing it to nut cancer is ok

Nikkole - posted on 12/17/2010

Yea shes using examples that have nothing to do with the whole debate!

Krista - posted on 12/17/2010

Exactly, and Charley is assuming that we're all okay with piercing ears.

For the record, Charley, I am NOT okay with ANY permanent alterations to any unconsenting child's body if they are not medically necessary. I think it is completely unethical to permanently alter any part of a child's body if there is no good medical reason to do so. I would have no sooner had my son's foreskin cut off than I would have had his earlobes removed or the tip of his nose amputated.

April - posted on 12/17/2010

don't forget...earrings can always be taken out. the holes can close up, but little baby boys will never get their foreskin back.

Nikkole - posted on 12/17/2010

Sorry but i dont think piercing a child's ears are the same as cutting off a part of there genitals!! Piercings you can take out and be done but foreskin you cant put back like that! And making a child go to school has nothing to do with this subject!

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

Heh. Didn't need a translator for that.

Shannen - posted on 12/17/2010

@ Charley

School Educates. Duh. So stop trying to use that. It just doesn't work. ( My daughter is hassling the crap outta me to send her, So again it is her decision)

School will hopefully educate people to make informed decisions.

Didn't get my daughters ear's pierced until she could ask for it. So stop making assumptions.

To all your religous stuff. Meh makes no ounce of difference to me because how old are those books?

Rude much?

Erin - posted on 12/17/2010

Charley, do you think we don't have access to Google translator? Please...

Minnie - posted on 12/17/2010

What makes you think we're all ok with piercing babies' ears?



Regarding schooling, children receive basic elementary and secondary education but are free to make their own choices about post-secondary school education. Let's not forget unschooling, which is becoming much more popular. It ensures that children receive the framework of basic education, but the children lead the direction based on their interests.



You truly can't compare knowledge received to physically maiming someone though. If a child, when he grows up, feels that he did not get the education that he needed he can take steps to rectify it. How are your sons going to reattach the mucosal and muscle tissue and 20000 nerve endings that were severed through infant MGM?



It's been said over and over here. Your rights end where your children's rights begin. It's recognized internationally, the right to bodily integrity.

Charley - posted on 12/17/2010

@ dana- Leck mich am Arsch! aller en enfer

Rebecca - posted on 12/17/2010

Setting aside the fact that religion doesn't justify child mutilation, let's look critically at your quote. As an initial matter, less than 2% of the US population is Jewish. So Old Testament quotes don’t apply to 98% of “believers” or to anyone else. And the Genesis quote only applied to Abraham and his descendents (plus his slaves). Plus, to accept it you have to reject God's proclamation that man was made in God's image and perfect. Moses specifically rejected circumcision for his son and circumcision was not required in the Ten Commandments or any of the new covenants ordered with the Ten Commandments. Not to mention that the biblical rite of circumcision was nothing like the radical circumcision performed today. Acts 15:1-20, 1 Corinthians 7:18-19, and Galatians 5:2 specifically say it's not necessary (and is prohibited) for Christians. The Catholic Church has a long-standing policy prohibiting it. The Quran has multiple verses prohibiting it as well (Allah "perfected everything he created" 32:7).