Circumcision Is Child Abuse And Should Be Illegal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nighthawk

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
29
http://www.mgmbill.org/index.htm

Support Grows for Ban on Male Circumcision

Bill proposals to regulate male circumcision now circulating in Congress and fifteen U.S. state legislatures.

SAN DIEGO, California – John Soemer from New Jersey remembers the moment when he learned that a part of his penis was missing as if it were yesterday. “I am now 61 years old, but I was in fifth grade when I first found out I was circumcised,” recalled John. “I had seen an intact friend's penis when he relieved himself while we were out fishing, and when I asked him why his looked so different, he told me what had been done to me. Back then neither one of us knew the proper name for any of those parts, so he called his foreskin his ‘funskin’. That gave me enough of an idea that I was missing out on something, and left me feeling very cheated.”

John is not the only circumcised man who feels that he was robbed of his right to an intact body. While thousands of men are taking up foreskin restoration to reverse some of their circumcision damage, others are working with human rights groups to stop circumcision from being forced onto infants and children. Today, John and a group of activists from fifteen states joined this movement when they participated in the Third Annual USA MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) Bill Submission. Together they submitted letters and bill proposals via fax, email, postal mail, and hand delivery to more than 2,700 federal and state legislators in a single day – up from 660 legislators the year before. The proposed legislation, written by San Diego based MGMbill.org, would make current U.S. female genital mutilation laws gender neutral so that boys are legally protected from circumcision the same way that girls are protected.

Matthew Hess, President of MGMbill.org, said that infant circumcision is sexual assault. “Male circumcision permanently damages male sexual function, and it is done forcefully, without the consent of the child. Just as cutting off any part of a baby girl’s genital anatomy would be considered a criminal act, amputation of a boy’s foreskin for medically unnecessary reasons should be treated as a crime of equal stature. If a fully informed adult wants to undergo circumcision for cosmetic, religious, or other personal reasons, then that is a decision he can make after he turns eighteen.”

Chaz Antonelli of Quincy, Massachusetts, took a day off from work to hand out copies of the MGM Bill proposal to legislators at the State House in Boston. Like most American men born in the 1960’s, Chaz was routinely circumcised as an infant in a hospital. “As a newborn baby, I could not protect myself from being circumcised,” said Chaz. “While I support an adult’s right to alter his or her own genitals if that is their preference, forcing circumcision onto a helpless child is a clear human rights violation. I’m here today because I want Massachusetts to be the first U.S. state to ban routine infant male circumcision.”

Male circumcision legislation is also becoming a topic of discussion in several European parliaments. Sweden became the first developed country in modern times to regulate and restrict male circumcision on human rights grounds in 2001, and in 2003 the Denmark National Council for Children called on lawmakers to ban the practice for the benefit of the children. In 2004, well-known Dutch Member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali called on fellow legislators to enact a similar ban, and she recently stated on a Dutch television documentary that male circumcision is “a form of mutilation” and that “the consequences can be worse for boys than for girls” when compared to some common types of female circumcision.
1. There is no medical or hygiene reason for circumcision. I am not circumcised and am quite capable of keeping my todger clean and fragrant.

2. Circumcision causes permanent loss of sexual feeling in a man's penis. Would you wish that fate on any man?

3. There is no consent. If you want to cut off bits of your **** when you are old enough to make an informed choice, be my guest.

4. The fact that women tend to not give a crap about male circumcision but rightly deplore female circumcision is one of feminism's great giveaways.

5. If you are circumcised, as most US males reading this are likely to be, you may be forgiven for adopting a 'it never did me any harm' attitude, and continue the abuse with your own children. This is denial, and you should accept you were traumatised by the mutilation and oppose any more needless bodily disfigurement and mental scarring of healthy baby boys.

6. I am 100% right on this issue, but feel free to disagree if you like babies being butchered.
 

Nighthawk

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
29
I'm 200% right!!

Provocative contentions of certainty aside, please explain why it is ok to permanently mutilate a non-consenting child.
 

howardalex

Banned
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
342
Reaction score
1
Location
Russia
yup it's mutilation...although it does make them look bigger + you can last longer in bed...hmm....wonder if I can still get one :p
 

Throttle

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
11
Nighthawk said:
1. There is no medical or hygiene reason for circumcision. I am not circumcised and am quite capable of keeping my todger clean and fragrant.
untrue. the hygenic benefits (if only superficial) are obvious, and at minimum it has been shown to reduce transmission of HIV to heterosexual males.

2. Circumcision causes permanent loss of sexual feeling in a man's penis.
according to...?

3. There is no consent. If you want to cut off bits of your **** when you are old enough to make an informed choice, be my guest.
you should take this up with your parents. they did many things to you without your informed consent for quite some time. you seem very upset with them. would you like to talk about it?

4. The fact that women tend to not give a crap about male circumcision but rightly deplore female circumcision is one of feminism's great giveaways.
the difference is night and day. female genital cutting (or less neutrally, mutilation) removes at minimum the main stimulatory female sex organ, without which most women cannot achieve orgasm. most circumcized males have little trouble achieving orgasm. now, if it involved chopping off the entire glans & foreskin.......
 

howardalex

Banned
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
342
Reaction score
1
Location
Russia
Throttle said:
the difference is night and day. female genital cutting (or less neutrally, mutilation) removes at minimum the main stimulatory female sex organ, without which most women cannot achieve orgasm. most circumcized males have little trouble achieving orgasm. now, if it involved chopping off the entire glans & foreskin.......
I hate the whole idea of it so don't confuse me for someone who condones it but....isn't that an extreme form of it? I mean...isn't it normally a cut that gives them greater feeling?
 

Nighthawk

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
2,079
Reaction score
29
the hygenic benefits (if only superficial) are obvious, and at minimum it has been shown to reduce transmission of HIV to heterosexual males.
Why not argue to permanently depilate babies heads so they never get head-lice?


2. Circumcision causes permanent loss of sexual feeling in a man's penis.

according to...?
Immigrants to Israel, 1990s
An Israeli research project in the early-1990s sought to measure changes in sexual satisfaction after circumcision among Russian immigrants who got themselves circumcised after immigration to Israel. The research was carried out by Dr Avi Teper and Dr Eliezer Shalev, from the Women's Department, Ha-emek Hospital, Afula. They mailed a questionnaire to 108 males, 76 of whom replied.

The circumcised immigrants reported a significant decrease in sexual satisfaction. Before circumcision 54 per cent reported "great sexual satisfaction", but afterwards the number was only 24 per cent. The proportion of those reporting "medium satisfaction" rose from 30 percent to 61 percent. There was no change in the number reporting "small satisfaction".

Since 68 per cent of the respondents sought circumcision as the fulfilment of their dream to become full Jews and 10 percent because of Jewish tradition, it is possible that some of them denied they felt any adverse consequences from the operation. The remainder sought circumcision because of social pressure, and one for a medical reason.

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin and R. Blustein, "Challenges to circumcision in Israel: The Israeli association against genital mutilation", in George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges and Marilyn Fayre Milos (eds) Male and female circumcision: Medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 343-50

Another circumcised man, 1993
At age 30, during a physical exam, my doctor, noticing my long foreskin, stated this was an unhealthy situation. That I would likely have problems with it, and advised that I be clipped. Have never studied circumcision on the pros and cons, I consented. He gave me no information on which to base an informed judgment. Neither did he give any information about what style he would employ, or how tight he would cut me, and I did not know enough to ask. …

In a couple of months the sensitivity began to decline and has continued to decline to this day. Sexual pleasure has been reduced by at least 70 per cent, both in intensity and the fact that the whole rage of sensation is completely gone. This is most logical, as two of the structures [foreskin and frenulum] were removed, and the only remaining structure, the head, has been toughened and desensitised by being deprived of the moist natural covering which God intended it to have, and is constantly exposed to the friction of clothing. … Circumcision has deprived me of much pleasure for the remainder of my life, has caused me physical pain and has been psychologically devastating. I no longer feel like a real man.

William E. Krueger, Winston-Salem NC, USA, open letter to newspapers and intact organisations, 12 July 1993

Canadian pathologists, 1996
The prepuce provides a large and important platform for several nerves and nerve endings. The innervation of the outer skin of the prepuce is impressive; its sensitivity to light touch and pain are similar to that of the skin of the penis as a whole. The glans, by contrast, is insensitive to light touch, heat, cold and … pin-prick. … We postulate that the "ridged band" [underside of the foreskin], with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the "smooth" mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the "ridged band" to move from a forward to a "deployed" position on the shaft of the penis. … It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. … The infant prepuce contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion.

J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor, "The prepuce: Specialised mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision", British Journal of Urology, Vol. 77, 1996, pp. 294-5

Full text (and some revealing images) here.

A normal (uncut) man, 1997
When I get hard, the feeling of the head expanding and moving inside the foreskin, stimulating the inner foreskin nerves, is fantastic. The feeling of the head trying to open the foreskin opening is a very exaggerated and erotic tickle. After erection, pulling the skin back half-way results in a searing tickle, and pulling it back all the way and laying it back along the shaft for the first time is almost blinding. The feeling of my skin being pushed back and forth during intercourse, stretching back over the corona, then being pulled forward, is exquisite. The tip of my skin moving over the head feels like a rubber band rolling over the head. I can ejaculate just by stretching the foreskin back tightly for about ten minutes and letting the frenulum build up its sensation and feeling that wonderful burning tingle that leads to firing off.

After my workout at the gym I see cut guys walking up to a hot shower with the water on the sharp setting. If I were to pull my skin back and do that, I would double over from the sensation. If I skin it back under a hot shower it feels like I'm being scalded. We uncut guys know what we have. The unamputated nerve endings of the foreskin and frenulum, and the undiminished nerves of the glans, make the penis during sex the centre of the universe. Cut guys know that when they see a video of an uncut guy: the head expands and turns red and purple and the foreskin locks behind the head and turns crimson from blood flow, putting the ultimate stretch on the frenulum. That guy is experiencing feelings that the cut guy can never imagine.

Jim Two88, "I know you don't feel what I feel", posted on Usenet newsgroups by Two88Alpha@aol.com, December 1997

The evidence mounts, 1998
The prepuce is a specific erogenous zone. It contains a rich, complex network of nerves and an abundance of mucocutaneous end organs sensitive to motion, touch, temperature and erogenous stimulation. Both the inner and outer folds of the prepuce have a denser distribution of nerve networks than the rest of the penile skin. The rich innervation of the inner prepuce contrasts sharply with the limited sensory investment of the glans penis, which is characterised primarily by free nerve endings, which feel only pressure and pain. The double layered prepuce provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded erect organ and to allow the penile skin to slide freely, smoothly and pleasurably over the shaft and glans. One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively, inside its own sheath of self-lubricating moveable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's prepuce is missing.

P.M. Fleiss, F.M. Hodges and R.S. Van Howe, "Immunological functions of the human prepuce", Sexually transmitted infections, Vol. 74, 1998, p. 365
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=32


you should take this up with your parents. they did many things to you without your informed consent for quite some time. you seem very upset with them. would you like to talk about it?
My parents never cut off any of my tallywacker and for that I am eternally grateful to them. There are limits to what parents have the right to do their child, yes? Immunisation and making you eat your greens, cool. Genital mutilation, not cool!

the difference is night and day. female genital cutting (or less neutrally, mutilation) removes at minimum the main stimulatory female sex organ, without which most women cannot achieve orgasm. most circumcized males have little trouble achieving orgasm. now, if it involved chopping off the entire glans & foreskin.......
Female circumcision is indeed even more brutal and traumatic than male circumcision, but they are both wrong.
 

Master Bates

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
1,007
Reaction score
10
I for the most part agree with this, and I'm cut. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and the slice it all off. Of course there's going to be a loss of sexual sensitivity. Hygenically there may be tiny benefits, but from what I've read/heard, it's not difficult at all to keep it clean. Aesthetically, the one and only reason women in america like cut penises more is because that's what they're used to seeing. Go outside the US and in most places women are used to seeing uncut penises. Also, the foreskin serves the same purpose that lube does, making it easier to slide in. It serves multiple purposes.

And yeah, the lack of consent is a real issue. There are genuine reasons to want your foreskin (like the sexual sensitivity), and when you're two hours old you don't exactly have a lot of say in what the doctors permanently do to you.
 

Fred Da Head

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
959
Reaction score
4
Throttle said:
you should take this up with your parents. they did many things to you without your informed consent for quite some time. you seem very upset with them. would you like to talk about it?
So you're cool with, say, daddy diddling his little boy? After all, you're fine with him permanently injuring him physically, why not injure him psychologically?

I think circumcision, like any other permanent, unnecessary surgery, should wait until the patient is of legal consenting age. The benefits are barely existent and the potential negative effects are numerous and vastly outweigh what little benefits there are. (Botched circumcision permanently preventing sexual enjoyment, let alone normal penile function, anyone?)
 

CCKazi007

Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
298
Reaction score
2
Funny how none of the guys who are circumcised and disagree with the issue haven't posted a single argument against any of the point the thread starter made. Well that just shows how one side is more dumber and incapable making a rebuttle.

I totally agree with the thread starter, it should be the child's choice if he wants to cut his foreskin when he's 18 then let him. Keeping good hygiene with the foreskin is easy, whoever said it's more likely to spread disease is a liar and probably circumcised individual who doesn't know sh*t. What's the point of mutilating your d*ck so that your less sensative? Your more likely to get ED and impotence. If I was circumcised I would definetly get it reattached.
 

bigjohnson

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,441
Reaction score
37
It's because none of the guys who have been circumcised are unhappy about it is my guess. I think it's funny that this "issue" is raised about 99% of the time by some cheese d1ck who's still mad that the other kids made fun of his stinky wiener in grade school.

Get over it. We're all pretty happy here in clean-wiener land.
 

simon

Master Don Juan
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
636
Reaction score
7
Location
England
bigjohnson said:
It's because none of the guys who have been circumcised are unhappy about it is my guess. I think it's funny that this "issue" is raised about 99% of the time by some cheese d1ck who's still mad that the other kids made fun of his stinky wiener in grade school.

Get over it. We're all pretty happy here in clean-wiener land.
Ah yes, that great schoolyard game, 'smell the other guy's penis'. The fun we had!
 

mrRuckus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
4,444
Reaction score
87
I'm circumsized and do not want to be.

The rest of the world gets by without crazy penis diseases making their males drop like flies so so can americans and europeans, who seem to live in cleaner conditions than much of the world anyway. And we've survived for millions of years now as a species with forskins.

I knew this already but i was trying to find a source so i looked here on wikipedia:
"The American Medical Association defines “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It states that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns"


The foreskin provides sexual pleasure and from what i've read the head of the penis gets densensitized from being exposed all the time rubbing against our underwear and all that.

There just isn't that much benefit to having it done. To help prevent AIDS? Maybe, but if i'm exposed to age i must be of some age to be able to decide for my damn self whether i want part of my penis removed.

The biggest argument for it is always hygiene and fvck parents too lazy to was their baby's penis... and even unwashed hardly anyone gets an infection.

Every time i've read this argument on a message board or whatever (i've read up on this a number of times) a bunch of uncircumsized guys speak up and say (paraphrased) "wtf are you talking about? i'm not circumsized and i don't do anything special and i never had any infection or anything." It's overblown, and less and less people are doing it.

And there is no way in hell the mother of my children is going to mutiliate them. If they want to become jewish or whatever at some other date then they're more than welcome to but unless their life is in danger i have no reason or moral grounds to decide something for them like this that will affect them their whole life.

Then there's the argument of "my body, my choice" so throw out that argument for pro-choice abortion ideas if you think cutting things off babies unnecessarily is okay so you stay logically consistent.

What i've seen the argument being for most women wanting their boys' cut was so they aren't made fun of... but this ignores the fact that less and less men in the U.S. are even having it done. And who cares anyway? Even if he gets made fun of at least it will toughen him up. And it's only "icky" to girls because they don't know any different. I've heard stories about guys who hide the fact that they're uncut and the girl doesn't know because all he has to do is pull it out of the foreskin before she sees.

And you know what really makes it wrong?
The fact that there are so many guys who wish they were not. You don't get to decide the rest of my life, so you don't get to decide this. None of the other stuff matters even if circumcision made me the world's greatest lover and women couldn't keep their hands off me everywhere i went, it's still my damn decision. The only way I can see having it done being warranted is if it's life threatening immediately to the baby, and it isn't. Would they just let you take your baby in and have his arm removed just to make it "look better" or "makes it easier to clean." Hell no, they're waiting until baby has flesh eating bacteria in his arm and it must come off for him to live.


eh.. this was sorta disjointed and rambling but whatever
 

Fred Da Head

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
959
Reaction score
4
mrRuckus said:
The only way I can see having it done being warranted is if it's life threatening immediately to the baby, and it isn't.
I don't think it's medically possible for it to be life-threatening, but it could be a condition (I can't remember the name) whereupon the foreskin is too tight and it can squeeze off blood supply and, apparently, it's really painful. I could see it for conditions like that, kinda like abortion being ok if the chick was raped or if she's 12 or something.
 

DarthJuan

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
300
Reaction score
1
Throttle said:
untrue. the hygenic benefits (if only superficial) are obvious, and at minimum it has been shown to reduce transmission of HIV to heterosexual males.
Maybe infants should stop having unprotected sex with each other.

Oh that's right...adults are having unsafe sex, but lets cut up the little infant so he'll be safe 16 to 20 years later when he does decide to have sex. :-/

I have the AIDS not because I have unprotected buttsecks :moon: , it's because I didn't have my foreskin lopped off as a baby. :box:
 

Wyldfire

Banned
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
9,108
Reaction score
28
Foreskin ruins your sex life and makes you less likely to receive oral sex because foreskin is ugly...that is all.
 

Raikojo17

Banned
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
982
Reaction score
5
Wyldfire said:
Foreskin ruins your sex life and makes you less likely to receive oral sex because foreskin is ugly...that is all.
so is a vaginal bush and rank pvssy. but u dont see us making fun of u do u?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top