Iceland to ban circumcision

[bmwmike]

Gary C said:

But you also say a foreskin has no use ?

Only someone who has had theirs chopped of could ever say that.

It does FFS

Of course it does. Someone without a foreskin cannot possibly know what they are missing.

[Dromedary66]

Gary C said:

But you also say a foreskin has no use ?

Only someone who has had theirs chopped of could ever say that.

Exactly, it's like a form of Stockholm Syndrome. To admit it has a very important use (it does and this is agreed by medical experts all over) would be to admit he was mutilated without a say in the matter.

[gooner1]

The FGM DEtectives. Tuesday 22.00 C4

For anyone that's interested.

[technodup]

Like I said yesterday...

technodup said:

maybe the reason DIC is so wound up is he realises that once these issues get raised it tends to be the thin end of the wedge and sooner or later progress trumps tradition. See also black people, women, gays, children, trans etc.

Dromedary66 said:

Here is the article

Article in The TImes said:

Anti-circumcision groups buoyed by proposals to ban the religious ritual for boys in Iceland are planning protests to put pressure on medical bodies to condemn the practice in Britain.

Drip, drip.

No surprise that the quotes use the same bullst arguments as our defender in chief. "But we've been doing it for pure ages". "But, but there might be medical benefits".

As someone else said, politicians do things for the kudos more than anything. When only 13% object it's a no brainer, even if it pisses off a few religious zealots.

Where is DIC today anyway, I am interested in his thoughts on the campaign.

[Moonhawk]

Gary C said:

But you also say a foreskin has no use ?

If it really did have no use - and it’s absence was of benefit with regards to STDs etc - then surely evolution would have selected againt it.

The fact that we still have them shows that they are either beneficial, or at least not detrimental enough to drive an evolutionary change.

[poo at Paul's]

gooner1 said:

The FGM DEtectives. Tuesday 22.00 C4

For anyone that's interested.

This will be interesting. I recall on the day that the banning of F1 grid girls was headline news all over, and feminists everywhere were championing the decision as a huge victory, a tiny story in the papers was noted saying that there were reckoned to be 24000 cases of FGM in the UK alone each year, and that despite legislation being put in place some years ago, so far there has not been a single prosecution for it! !

Made me think that perhaps them feminists should target their efforts elsewhere!

[WinstonWolf]

poo at Paul's said:

gooner1 said:

The FGM DEtectives. Tuesday 22.00 C4

For anyone that's interested.

This will be interesting. I recall on the day that the banning of F1 grid girls was headline news all over, and feminists everywhere were championing the decision as a huge victory, a tiny story in the papers was noted saying that there were reckoned to be 24000 cases of FGM in the UK alone each year, and that despite legislation being put in place some years ago, so far there has not been a single prosecution for it! !

Made me think that perhaps them feminists should target their efforts elsewhere!

Can't disagree with you there...

[Moonhawk]

poo at Paul's said:

there were reckoned to be 24000 cases of FGM in the UK alone each year,

Need to understand what that means though. I doubt in means 24,000 female babies are subjected to FGM every year. That would be a huge percentage of births.

In 2016 there were around 384,000 female births of all ethnicities - so the above figure each year would represent about 7% of all females born - and would be approaching 100% if you only consider children born of ethnicities where FGM is most prevalent.

Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 26th February 17:48

[Halb]

NDA said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but it's one of the lead stories in the Times today "Doctors under pressure to support ban on ritual circumcision'.

"Senior rabbis and imams have said that any such move would contravene religious freedoms and are gearing up for a battle." Reports the Times.

I am convinced the Times trawls PH for stories - there are so many occasions when threads on here get picked up by them.

We can influence the nation!

[Einion Yrth]

Moonhawk said:

If it really did have no use - and it’s absence was of benefit with regards to STDs etc - then surely evolution would have selected againt it.

The fact that we still have them shows that they are either beneficial, or at least not detrimental enough to drive an evolutionary change.

I suspect that a lot of the "circumcision is good" brigade aren't that hot on evolution, of course that leaves us with "god made man in his own image", so, with a prepuce then...

EY Circumcised, (phimosis aged 21 yrs (zipper accident)).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Moonhawk said:

If it really did have no use - and it’s absence was of benefit with regards to STDs etc - then surely evolution would have selected againt it.

The fact that we still have them shows that they are either beneficial, or at least not detrimental enough to drive an evolutionary change.

Your last part is correct. The foreskin was really useful when we were 4 legged, to protect from damage from stuff on the ground, shrubs or whatever. But walking upright, it's largely redundant from it's purpose. But evolution would only get shot of if it was a hindrance. Those with the biggest ones would survive for less time and have less kids, the smaller the foreskin, the more kids, those genes would continue so ever many hundreds of generations, no foreskin. The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

[bmwmike]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Your last part is correct. The foreskin was really useful when we were 4 legged, to protect from damage from stuff on the ground, shrubs or whatever. But walking upright, it's largely redundant from it's purpose. But evolution would only get shot of if it was a hindrance. Those with the biggest ones would survive for less time and have less kids, the smaller the foreskin, the more kids, those genes would continue so ever many hundreds of generations, no foreskin. The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

Not useful when wearing pants then, or sans pants commando? Guess if you don't have one you wouldn't know.

Edited by bmwmike on Monday 26th February 21:37

[ruggedscotty]

I can assure you that a foreskin is indeed a necessary part of the anatomy of a male. It is there to maintain the glans in a moist environment. remove the foreskin and it will dry out considerably and then the nerves that provide simulation will no longer be as sensitive.

you can remove it much like you can remove a toe a finger an eye or an ear. you wont die from that but it will have an effect on you.

[Dromedary66]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Your last part is correct. The foreskin was really useful when we were 4 legged, to protect from damage from stuff on the ground, shrubs or whatever. But walking upright, it's largely redundant from it's purpose. But evolution would only get shot of if it was a hindrance. Those with the biggest ones would survive for less time and have less kids, the smaller the foreskin, the more kids, those genes would continue so ever many hundreds of generations, no foreskin. The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

It is still useful for protecting a sensitive part of the male genitalia and makes sex better.

You're just jealous you don't have one.

[wc98]

Dromedary66 said:

It is still useful for protecting a sensitive part of the male genitalia and makes sex better.

You're just jealous you don't have one.

i have to admit i would prefer having one. trying to show girls how to give a pain free hand job back in the day without a foreskin wasn't easy. it did result in more blow jobs though, less effort required

ps, i thought durian would have been back to answer all the questions today as he was pushed for time yesterday

[Dromedary66]

wc98 said:

i have to admit i would prefer having one. trying to show girls how to give a pain free hand job back in the day without a foreskin wasn't easy. it did result in more blow jobs though, less effort required

Sorry it was done to you, and yes that was one reason it was popularised in America was to stop the "sinful" act of masturbation. At least you got an upside!

[Moonhawk]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

It would if it’s presence promoted disease to a large degree. The fact it hasnt been selected out means that at best, any adverse effect of having it is marginal.

As for human evolution being skewed - it is now, but we have had hundreds of thousands of years before modern medicine.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 27th February 07:10

[wc98]

Dromedary66 said:

Sorry it was done to you, and yes that was one reason it was popularised in America was to stop the "sinful" act of masturbation. At least you got an upside!

it was a medical requirement at the time ,so there was no option. the saving grace was having it done at a young age. a mate that had it done in his twenties was in agony for a couple of weeks afterwards.

[Troubleatmill]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Your last part is correct. The foreskin was really useful when we were 4 legged, to protect from damage from stuff on the ground, shrubs or whatever. But walking upright, it's largely redundant from it's purpose. But evolution would only get shot of if it was a hindrance. Those with the biggest ones would survive for less time and have less kids, the smaller the foreskin, the more kids, those genes would continue so ever many hundreds of generations, no foreskin. The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

Well slap me gently with the bell end of a rag man's trumpet.

As a poster boy to persuade me to cut off my pecker - I'm convinced.

Actually - I'm all in.

Oh no wait... I got that quite wrong. What was it I meant to say was....
Cutting of bits of babies that cannot object to the procedure for no good reason ( and they could elect to do it in adulthood ) -is just plain up there with paedophilia, rape, torture.

Yep that is it.

And despite the "no disadvantages"

This is the 21st Century.. It is *****ng barbaric.

[WinstonWolf]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Moonhawk said:

If it really did have no use - and it’s absence was of benefit with regards to STDs etc - then surely evolution would have selected againt it.

The fact that we still have them shows that they are either beneficial, or at least not detrimental enough to drive an evolutionary change.

Your last part is correct. The foreskin was really useful when we were 4 legged, to protect from damage from stuff on the ground, shrubs or whatever. But walking upright, it's largely redundant from it's purpose. But evolution would only get shot of if it was a hindrance. Those with the biggest ones would survive for less time and have less kids, the smaller the foreskin, the more kids, those genes would continue so ever many hundreds of generations, no foreskin. The foreskin doesn't hamper reproduction so evolution doesn't select it out.

Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.

You've never been out when it's *really* cold, have you?