Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

Ciro: Michelangelo didn't circumcise David Why?

Um... 'cause he couldn't fine a Moyl??

;o)

(sorry... it's clearly Friday!)

Post 41

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 8:54am

Ah, David... They don't make men like that anymore. Strong, quiet and always ha...

Nevermind...

;o)

Post 42

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:03am

Summer, David being a Juish had to be circumcited.
All Juishs are!
I guess Michelangelo liked to replicate nature as it is!
Ciao

Post 43

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:31am

Jody,

That is the combined rate for both breaking and slipping. Surely, you don't think they are 100% safe? After all, what is?

Post 44

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:32am

Michaelangelo was not a Jew, and most likely never saw a Jew, let alone naked, so most likely never saw a circumcised male...
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/28, 9:35am)

Post 45

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:35am

Robert,

He saw a lot of penises are you sure?

Post 46

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:37am

Considering the culture of the time, would say is the most likely case, yes...

Post 47

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:38am

Robert-
As for breakage, does it factor out those who do not leave a little extra room at the tip, and as for slippage, does it factor out those who continue intercourse after ejaculation. I know they are not 100% effective, but as with most modern technology a lot of failure can be attributed to the old ESO problem.

Post 48

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:40am

Rober M. there is more than that.
Ciro

Post 49

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 9:51am

Circumcision is a terrible choice to impose on an infant. The excuse that disappoints me the most is avoidance of questions from the boy as to why he looks different than Dad. It�s usually the mother making this excuse. I�ll respond, �So it�s matching cocks. You want to put a knife to your son so that your home has matching cocks.�

A truly disgusting excuse is that uncut penises (read: unmutilated penises) look goofy. Again, this is always from a woman. I�ll respond, �I�ve seen women who have a little �extra� hanging around, and that looks goofy, too. Luckily, my daughter wasn�t born with any of that, so we didn�t have to get the knife out and clean up.� Of course, she gets offended. Hopefully, something sinks in.

The only honorable reason I have encountered was a friend who asked some female friends what they thought. All of them told him that if he wanted his son to ever receive oral sex, he should cut him. He believed it, and cut him.

As for the pleasure issue, there can be no doubt about the loss. Those precious square inches are packed like no other part of the body with millions of high-quality nerve endings. Disconnect some sensors from your car�s computer control system�sure it will still run.

I am circumcised and I would give my left nut to get my foreskin back.

Jon

Post 50

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:23am

Why jews perform a circumcision?"
"They economize on the place in their pants!"

Post 51

Friday, October 28, 2005 - 11:21pm

Jon

"I am circumcised and I would give my left nut to get my foreskin back."

I don't want to hit this one too hard, Jon, but what the hell are you on about? I'm circumcised & can't say that I've ever had a *foreskin moment* after intercourse where I've quietly asked myself: "Mmm, that was good but gee, I wonder if I'd have enjoyed it more if I had some more skin over my glans?"

Ya know?

Tongue in cheek comments aside, this thread borders on the ridiculous. Especially some of the comments from the fairer sex. Shall we have a thread on the clitoris, girls?

To suggest that a cut man has less pleasure or is somehow less than complete due to the removal or a few millimetres of skin is not only silly but presumptuous. It's like saying that short guys enjoy life less than the tall. Well, maybe that's an unfortunate analogy but you get my point--oops! sorry, another slip up!

Quite frankly, most men, me included, have enough trouble lasting a decent length of time. Believe me, sensitivity is *not* an issue for a circumcised man.

Debate the rights & wrongs of circumcision all ya like. I'm not advocating it but I can't say that I've ever felt violated or mutilated or had deep seated resentment towards my parents. Quite frankly, and to wax explicit for a sec, my cock is my cock, proud & true [twang!], sans foreskin or not.

Vive la Cock!!

Ross

PS: I'd comment on Ash's quite stunning post earlier, but I'm seriously afraid she'd pull some sordid revelation out of her girlie bag of tricks that would nail me to the wall :-)

(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 10/28, 11:24pm)

Post 52

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 1:20am

Sure, you don't miss it now that it's gone. But that's not a great test of whether it should have been removed in the first place. If it's a fine thing for doctors to do then they may as well remove the tonsils and appendix at the same time, just in case at some time in the future they also throw a funk.

If you want my foreskin you'll have to pry it out of my warm, clammy hands!

Post 53

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:10am

"If you want my foreskin you'll have to pry it out of my warm, clammy hands!"

Mr V, I think you need a new pick-up line.

Post 54

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 5:29am

Ross, do you think a woman would enjoy sex as much if her clitoris had been surgically altered or removed? As I understand it, it's not much different for men. I don't resent my parents; they acted on what information they had and thought it was necessary for reasons of hygiene. I know better, and won't have my sons cut unless they develop phimosis and cannot be cured without circumcision.

Post 55

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 5:33am

I can't believe people who are supposed to be standing up for individual rights are neglecting to stand up for just that on this issue. What ever happened to the notion of parents raising their own children as they see fit, circumcision or not? Children do not possess full-blown individual rights, only their parents do, so please, let's not pretend they do. I would be very interested to see the mess that giving children full blown rights would cause. What is actually being advocated here is the infringement on the rights of parents to choose.
And trauma is a psychological concept. If there is no memory, there is no trauma. When the procedure is done early enough in life, there is no memory of it, and therefore no trauma, other then so-called trauma being projected onto another. Hell, I've seen more actual trauma put onto a young toddler getting his or her ear's pierced then from any circumcision procedure which is done with proper medical care.
If you are a parent who doesn't agree with circumcision, then don't have it done. But please don't advocate the abolition of the individual rights of the parents who do see it as a value, especially if you claim to be for individual rights. What does calling it an initiation of force while thinly veiling it in a question supposed to mean anyway?
I will stand on the side of the individual rights of the parents to decide. What is the morality of the other side, anyway?

Post 56

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 7:45am

Ross,

If your pinky fingers had been cut off and tossed into a dumpster at birth, you would be saying the same things today. You can still pick things up, write, drive and shake other�s hands. You would be assuring us that everything works just fine.

Jon

Post 57

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:00am

I find myself leaning toward the viewpoint of Casey and Jon here. The various arguments have demonstrated conclusively that whatever medical benefits pre-emptive circumcision delivers can be more effectively accomplished with hygiene, condoms and careful partner selection. This begs the question: Is unchosen circumcision effectively a form of assault via mutilation? All the evidence thus far points in that direction.

I admit I still feel uncomfortable with yet another restrictive law on parental choice, but I find it harder and harder to argue against such a law. Of course, I doubt we will see that law passed any time soon, so it is up to us to make our own life-affirming choices about this issue.

As for phimosis, a disease Matthew mentioned, a Google search found a variety of alternatives to circumcision for treatment. According to

http://www.norm-uk.org/phimosis_clinical_guidelines.html

Cautions for Circumcision
Circumcision is essentially irreversible and should be the treatment of last resort. If a circumcision is to be performed, all the following patient criteria should be met.
Have a genuine therapeutic indication for circumcision, conservative treatment having been tried and failed.
Have understood the implications of circumcision and be willing to have the operation.
Have understood that circumcision has at least a 2% chance of serious complications.[ 43 ]
Have a supportive friend or relative to stay with them overnight.

That settles it for me. If I ever have a son, he will remain intact!

Post 58

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:11am

DJ, parents don't have a right to harm their children. You'll have a hard time convincing me that cutting health tissue off a human doesn't fall into the "harm" category. Following your logic a parent could arrange to cut off a child's legs (stops them running into traffic and hurting themselves).

Morality: This is not merely an aesthetic choice. The foreskin isn't mine and not endangering the child.

I don't see many adults demanding circumcision for themselves. Hell, if there was enough demand I'd set up a chop-shop!

Post 59

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:27am