Circumcision poll - ladies too

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mikalina wrote:

My son was circumcised - its only extra "skin".

He never cried nor was there any type of "bandage" on his penis. He was perfectly fine.

Yeah, I don't get all this pain stuff. My boys cried MUCH more at diaper rashes than they did when they were snipped.

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

jethrojam420

facepollution wrote:

curly wrote:

Absolute Angel...maybe you can go with the norm...not sure what part of the world your from or currently reside but...yes it's not the norm worldwide but in the united states...its more like 99.999499% that men are... so...ya we here in the USA do some pretty stupid stuff but as for this type of issue...we really do what make sense!!! Religion or No Religion...

From what I've read it's just over 50% in the US.......

its 50ish% now

in the 70's and 80's in america is was 90% cut, considered to be an fad because everyone was doing it.

this is perhaps why many american men on this board are cut.

times change and people think twice about what is the norm. it was started as a way to curb disease and masturbation. disease is no longer assumed to be caused due to an uncut member; so now it is just done for religious purposes designed solely on not playing.

there are advantages to cutting. cleaner is basically the most common answer.

up to you.

any other questions, ask my wife

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

mikalina wrote:

My son was circumcised - its only extra "skin".

He never cried nor was there any type of "bandage" on his penis. He was perfectly fine.

Yeah, I don't get all this pain stuff. My boys cried MUCH more at diaper rashes than they did when they were snipped.

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

Well, I can tell you, by 4 boys did nothing close to what they discribe there. Maybe, there are butchers out there that shouldn't be doing it. And, perhaps some babies are more sensitive than others. Regardless, as I said - I don't care what you do, but if you decide to do it, do it within a couple days of birth and not later.

facepollution

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if all the women posting on here would be all in favour of female circumcision, you know, obviously in the name of cleanliness? :roll:

mikalina

facepollution wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if all the women posting on here would be all in favour of female circumcision, you know, obviously in the name of cleanliness? :roll:

I think the female circumcision would be much more than "extra" skin.... being removed.

there is much more involved - I'm not sure what part you would want to remove... just wondering.

CJMST3K

facepollution wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if all the women posting on here would be all in favour of female circumcision, you know, obviously in the name of cleanliness? :roll:

Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings would have been less interesting if that were to have been popular years ago.

voidofman

Uncut, haven't had any problems with the hygiene because I clean the damn thing like you're supposed to even if it was cut.

Except for the occasional yeast infection or dryness it hasn't been a problem. Since it's covered up most of the time I assume it makes it more sensitive too.

facepollution

mikalina wrote:

facepollution wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if all the women posting on here would be all in favour of female circumcision, you know, obviously in the name of cleanliness? :roll:

I think the female circumcision would be much more than "extra" skin.... being removed.

there is much more involved - I'm not sure what part you would want to remove... just wondering.

So what if it's extra skin? If people are seriously going to argue that a circumcised penis is cleaner then surely they must concede that the same would be true for females? Female circumcision involves the removal of all the outer skin (clearly I'm not in favour of any type of circumcision unless for medical/religious reasons - if that wasn't clear.....)

And by the way, foreskin is not just "extra" skin, it has very particular functions.

ShimmyMommy

facepollution wrote:

So what if it's extra skin? If people are seriously going to argue that a circumcised penis is cleaner then surely they must concede that the same would be true for females? Female circumcision involves the removal of all the outer skin (clearly I'm not in favour of any type of circumcision unless for medical/religious reasons - if that wasn't clear.....)

And by the way, foreskin is not just "extra" skin, it has very particular functions.

I have to agree with facepollution here. It's not just extra skin. Unlike the umbilical cord, it does not bleed, dry up, fall off as the child grows. On the topic of female circumcision, it is a practice used in some countries to keep young virgins pure for marriage. The practice is being fought against as it is unnecessary mutilation, which destroys all their sensation.

The only time I would deem circumcision as appropriate is if there is a medical issue and there is no other option available. Otherwise, I am against it.

catefrances

Claireack wrote:

..
If it's being done for religious reasons thats fine. But unless there is a medical need, why do it?
...

are you kidding me??? God decides that all, yes ALL human boys will be born with a foreskin and then man decides its icky and must be removed for religious purposes?? fuck that bullshit. i dont care if the guy im with is a hooded terrorist or a stormtrooper.. its all about knowing what to do with it and how to take care of yourself. there is NO reason to remove a foreskin... NONE! and yes my son is still fully intact.

catefrances

ShimmyMommy wrote:

...On the topic of female circumcision, it is a practice used in some countries to keep young virgins pure for marriage. The practice is being fought against as it is unnecessary mutilation, which destroys all their sensation...

female circumcision is a barbaric practice and it is one that is imposed by men. i say fuck men most of the time.. what they do is about control and im tired of it. i am not here for your amusement or even for your approval. if you want me to get you off im all for that BUT quid pro quo, i want you to get me off.. if i do not have a clitoris then that aint gonna happen is it?? so fuck you with your primitive manipulative control freak ideas of sexuality... and when i say it is your loss, trust me.. it is.

IrishGuy

Circumcision is a barbaric practice that should only be used in cases of medical necessity. Otherwise it is the mutilation of the genitals of a helpless child and no amount of excuses be it for cleanliness or religious reasons can hide that fact.

catefrances

facepollution wrote:

mikalina wrote:

facepollution wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, I wonder if all the women posting on here would be all in favour of female circumcision, you know, obviously in the name of cleanliness? :roll:

I think the female circumcision would be much more than "extra" skin.... being removed.

there is much more involved - I'm not sure what part you would want to remove... just wondering.

So what if it's extra skin? If people are seriously going to argue that a circumcised penis is cleaner then surely they must concede that the same would be true for females? Female circumcision involves the removal of all the outer skin (clearly I'm not in favour of any type of circumcision unless for medical/religious reasons - if that wasn't clear.....)

And by the way, foreskin is not just "extra" skin, it has very particular functions.

no you are wrong.. female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris.. the clitoris IS NOT extra skin. im assuming youve seen or at least touched one.. by which case youd know this.
for many many women, the stimulus of the clitoris is the only way in which they can orgasm.. remove it and you remove an ultimate pleasure... and really when it comes to female circumcision thats what its all about isnt it??? the loss of male control that comes with female masturbation as well as the pleasure she recieves from her lover... both out of the control of men to varying degrees.

Claireack

catefrances wrote:

Claireack wrote:

..
If it's being done for religious reasons thats fine. But unless there is a medical need, why do it?
...

are you kidding me??? God decides that all, yes ALL human boys will be born with a foreskin and then man decides its icky and must be removed for religious purposes?? fuck that bullshit. i dont care if the guy im with is a hooded terrorist or a stormtrooper.. its all about knowing what to do with it and how to take care of yourself. there is NO reason to remove a foreskin... NONE! and yes my son is still fully intact.

I am not going to start condemning those who do it for religious reasons. I am not religious myself but understand that it is very important to some people.

Female circumcision - involves the removal of skin, the clitoris and in many many cases the area is stitched closed, leaving a very small entrance. It's a barbaric procedure, which has led to the unnecessary deaths of many women.

catefrances

Claireack wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Claireack wrote:

..
If it's being done for religious reasons thats fine. But unless there is a medical need, why do it?
...

are you kidding me??? God decides that all, yes ALL human boys will be born with a foreskin and then man decides its icky and must be removed for religious purposes?? fuck that bullshit. i dont care if the guy im with is a hooded terrorist or a stormtrooper.. its all about knowing what to do with it and how to take care of yourself. there is NO reason to remove a foreskin... NONE! and yes my son is still fully intact.

I am not going to start condemning those who do it for religious reasons. I am not religious myself but understand that it is very important to some people.

Female circumcision - involves the removal of skin, the clitoris and in many many cases the area is stitched closed, leaving a very small entrance. It's a barbaric procedure, which has led to the unnecessary deaths of many women.

i have no problem condemning barbaric practices in the name of religion and shame on you for having such a problem. how are you with stoning??

IrishGuy

Claireack wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Claireack wrote:

..
If it's being done for religious reasons thats fine. But unless there is a medical need, why do it?
...

I am not going to start condemning those who do it for religious reasons. I am not religious myself but understand that it is very important to some people.

Female circumcision - involves the removal of skin, the clitoris and in many many cases the area is stitched closed, leaving a very small entrance. It's a barbaric procedure, which has led to the unnecessary deaths of many women.

Sorry but are you saying that if female circumcision is done for religious reasons then it is okay? Or is it okay only when done to boys for religious reasons?
Religious reasons are bullsh*t! What else should we allow people to get away with then under the guise of religion?

catefrances

IrishGuy wrote:

Sorry but are you saying that if female circumcision is done for religious reasons then it is okay? Or is it okay only when done to boys for religious reasons?
Religious reasons are bullsh*t! What else should we allow people to get away with then under the guise of religion?

:thumbup:

Claireack

Stoning is a whole different kettle of fish and you know it. There are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes, they are wrong.

No I'm not saying that. Male circumcision is by no means as dangerous as female circumcision.

If you write anything else and I don't reply, it's not because I haven't got more to say, I've got to go to work now.

IrishGuy

Ah, so its the danger level now....

http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circ ... ear-in-us/

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

So 100 deaths a year of baby boys is acceptable to you for religious reasons? :x

catefrances

Claireack wrote:

Stoning is a whole different kettle of fish and you know it. There are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes, they are wrong.

No I'm not saying that. Male circumcision is by no means as dangerous as female circumcision.

If you write anything else and I don't reply, it's not because I haven't got more to say, I've got to go to work now.

hows it different??? theyre both done in the name of religion. and both are delivered due to a male oppressive society. you say there are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes theyre wrong BUT you cant condem female circumcison done in the name of religion?? im sorry claire but im not understanding your logic.