UglyCasanova
Lifer
- Mar 25, 2001
- 19,275
- 1,361
- 126
ya, i really did think it was luvly until i looked at the name, but it's suspicious. joined 11/02. hmmm.
GTaudiophile
Lifer
- Oct 24, 2000
- 29,767
- 33
- 81
Painfully removing a woman's "man in the boat" so she can't have pleasure is totally fvcked up! For guys, it's not so big of a deal, but I can understand how some disagree with the religious overtones.
Any of you who don't see this as barbaric have obviously never seen one performed. Seeing a newborn scream, shake, go into shock and pass out from this is probably the most horrid thing I have ever seen in my life. There is no way in Hell I'd put my son through that.
Except for those of us who HAVE HELPED PERFORM not one, but perhaps three or four dozen circumcisions. I guess that means this is a lot less about 'seeing one' than it is about you just an insufferable sissy?
Your comment is dripping with irrational emotion, based on what you perceive to be needless 'suffering'. All surgery is barbaric, in that sense. Guess we shouldn't do it.
Circumcision in the United States has never predominantly been performed for "religious" reasons, but for health reasons. Even the "religious" reasons stem from the health and cleanliness laws of the old testament. The Bible does not make circumcision a 'moral' issue, in the sense that being uncircumcised is some sort of 'sin'. It was simply a health issue, no different than food laws prescribed by the old testament.
Anticircumcision zealots point to the same old worn-out evidence to claim that circumcision became an accepted practice due to puritanical religious reasons. They offer Dr. Kellogg and his commentary on the benefits of circumcision in preventing 'evils' like masturbation, as their "proof" of this puritanical foreskin persecution. That would be fine and well, and all, except that Dr. Kellogg never enjoyed a prominent or distinguished place among the American medical establishment, nor did Dr. Kellogg have any discernable influence on the established medical school of thought. Not then, not now.
Dr. Kellogg was simply a doctor who had some personal fundamentalist Christian opinions. He published those opinions. That doesn't make his opinions any more influencial on or representative of the medical establisment in his day than those of ultra conservative Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who is a also physician. Dr. Kellogg is known universally for breakfast cereal, not medical scholarship.
Further, one would have to give a strained reading of Dr. Kellogg's writings in order to find that he advocated circumcision for any reasons OTHER than health reasons. His writings on the practice of circumcision mention, as an aside, that AMONG the benefits of, not the indications for, circumcision is that it discourages masturbation and other 'immoral' sexual behavior.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
I was circumcised shortly after birth (it was and is common in Canada as well). I remember from high school (all boys school) that there was one maybe 2 boys in my grade that were not circumcised.
There is a slight medical benefit to it.. Almost for sure not enough of a benefit to justify doing it for purely medical reasons.
I could see how it would be considered "barbaric" by someone who from a culture where it isn't often performed.
I have seen it done and the 2 times I did, the baby creid but did not "pass out" and did not seem to be in any sort of extreme agony. Babies are poked by needles quite a few times shortly after birth and have all sorts of other procedures done to them which they complain about (I have 2 daughters and was there for the birth of both of them).
After discussion with my wife (who is an MD), we decided that any sons we would have would be circumcised as well.
Michael
ps - The only organized religion that I am aware of off the top of my head that has circumcision is the Jewish faith. Ornery's comments about organized religion are part of his typical hate speech against religion. He is, of course, entitled to both his opinion and to express it. However, cultural mores have been around since the beginning of time and exist outside of humans. Religious mores are part of the cultural mores and have as much validity as mores as democracy does as a mores in the US. I view organized religion as a force for good. As a force, it can and had been used for evil as well, but, in my opinion, it is mainly a force for good.
There is a slight medical benefit to it.. Almost for sure not enough of a benefit to justify doing it for purely medical reasons.
I could see how it would be considered "barbaric" by someone who from a culture where it isn't often performed.
I have seen it done and the 2 times I did, the baby creid but did not "pass out" and did not seem to be in any sort of extreme agony. Babies are poked by needles quite a few times shortly after birth and have all sorts of other procedures done to them which they complain about (I have 2 daughters and was there for the birth of both of them).
After discussion with my wife (who is an MD), we decided that any sons we would have would be circumcised as well.
Michael
ps - The only organized religion that I am aware of off the top of my head that has circumcision is the Jewish faith. Ornery's comments about organized religion are part of his typical hate speech against religion. He is, of course, entitled to both his opinion and to express it. However, cultural mores have been around since the beginning of time and exist outside of humans. Religious mores are part of the cultural mores and have as much validity as mores as democracy does as a mores in the US. I view organized religion as a force for good. As a force, it can and had been used for evil as well, but, in my opinion, it is mainly a force for good.
The only benefit I can see is if you don't teach your sons to wash themselves properly. Why would your wife, a MD, want to have her children circumcized?
actually i know quite a bit about John Kellog. he was at his peak the most prominent physician in the world. Royalty from europe would come visit his spas because of his fame. He could have greatly altered what the AMA later became, but he got too full of himself and pissed off too many people. he also did go off the deep end later in his life.
It wasn't John Kellog but his Brother that was famous for Kellog's Cereal.
Kellog was a Seventh-day Adventist, like myself. I had to learn all this as part of church history and i can tell you that Kellog was the type of person to introduce or encourage circumcision to prevent masturbation.
Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's a medical (often religious) proceedure. People don't get off on it, it's a service to avoid infections and all kinds of scarry isht. Mushrooms are better in bed anyway.
82 % of men in the World are NOT CIRCUMCISED.
what scarry isht is that? it would seem to me that the circumsized would be more scarred than the uncircumcised.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Jellomancer - My wife and I, both adults, discussed it at length and decided to do it for reasons that we thought important enough for us. Since this is our decision, that's about all I plan on getting into it. No sons, yet, so it is a moot point right now.
Even today, most of the other MD's that we know had their sons circumcised. The total % is dropping for the greater population, but it still is more than a simple majority.
Michael
Even today, most of the other MD's that we know had their sons circumcised. The total % is dropping for the greater population, but it still is more than a simple majority.
Michael
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
82 % of men in the World are NOT CIRCUMCISED.
what scarry isht is that? it would seem to me that the circumsized would be more scarred than the uncircumcised.
82% thats because there are like million upon millions of men in Mexico City, Africa, India, or other poverty stricken placed where it isn't even possible for the masses to get it done. Nice stat though.
I would be interested to know what the percentage is here in America. I bet it's well over 50%I have played a lot of sports and things like that so I suppose I've seen a few...I only know one guy that isn't circumcised, and thats because it's a family tradition.
bright one aren't you.
you kind of missed the point of the post there didn't you.
btw, it's not just 3rd world countries, it's also most of europe as well, so don't try and dismiss it like that.
Originally posted by: DiamondJ
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
82 % of men in the World are NOT CIRCUMCISED.
what scarry isht is that? it would seem to me that the circumsized would be more scarred than the uncircumcised.
82% thats because there are like million upon millions of men in Mexico City, Africa, India, or other poverty stricken placed where it isn't even possible for the masses to get it done. Nice stat though.
I have played a lot of sports and things like that so I suppose I've seen a few...I only know one guy that isn't circumcised, and thats because it's a family tradition.
Europe is hardly poverty-stricken and has circumcision rates of only 10%-15%.
LOL.
nice, i wasn't expecting such an intelligent zinger. i take back my "bright one aren't you" comment.
Ah yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification.
Well except for the fact that he didn't, not in his published writings, anyway. I realize we all have our own opinions what people might have said or done 120 years ago, but let's stick with what they did or did not in reality do, yes?
BTW, being "famous" or "fashionable" with Royalty for one's "spas" does not a prominent or influencial physician one make. There are lots of fashionable and famous astrologers and wholistic practitioners who are patroned by the rich, too, but that doesn't mean they hold esteemed or influencial positions within the fields of astronomy or medicine.
be that as it may, there are no real significant reasons for systematic circumcisions. I'm not saying you should outlaw it or anything but why do it if it serves no real significant medical purpose?? like i said, both of my sons are uncut. as long as they stay clean they will be fine.
Oh NOO! Scarry isht!! You are justifying it to yourself. You had it done, and obviously it took something away from your body, so you justify it to yourself by saying that it has benefit. This kind of justification (I forget the name) is normally associated with initiation rituals. For example, a boy in a tribe is taken away from his mother and circumcized so that he can "become a man". He has endured great pain, and why would that happen? Obviously it is for a reason, that being that he is now a man! The feeling is It must have been worth it. Same with fraternity hazings. It creates a feeling that what you endured the suffering for must be a great privelage.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter