Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
wc98 said:
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.
That's a bit of a selfish viewpoint though "I'd rather inflict that pain on a child than have to endure it as a man!" 
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.
That theory is as bizarre as the practice you defend.Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.
Does hair hamper reproduction?
Moonhawk said:
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
According to NHS official stats, there were 9,179 attendances reported at NHS trusts & GP practices where FGM was identified or a procedure for FGM was udnertaken, in the 12 months to March 2017
Of these, 5,391 were newly recorded cases
Of the newly recorded cases, just 112 involved women or girls born in the UK
Of those, 57 involved the FGM being undertaken in the UK
Of those, 50 were classified as genital piercings (type 4 FGM)
Source:
https://digital.nhs.uk/article/6941/Annual-statist...
Oakey said:
wc98 said:
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.
That's a bit of a selfish viewpoint though "I'd rather inflict that pain on a child than have to endure it as a man!" 
tbmwmike said:
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.Only someone who has had theirs chopped of could ever say that.
It does FFS
And equally, it is close to impossible for an uncircumcised male to be completely objective on the subject of male circumcision
Oakey said:
That's a bit of a selfish viewpoint though "I'd rather inflict that pain on a child than have to endure it as a man!"
lol, not quite ! as i said before i can't remember the actual pain even though i got an infection after the op that required a longer stay in hospital and a district nurse visiting the house regularly to clean it with tcp afterward. he had it happen once he was sexually active and had to forego sex for a number of weeks and he reckoned sex was painful for a while once he got the ok from the doc. he also woke up in agony a few times with morning glory, really not desirable soon after an op on your dick . i strongly suspect once the laws change to only allow voluntary circumcision once people hit 18 the numbers of ops will plummet .
jonby said:
Indeed
And equally, it is close to impossible for an uncircumcised male to be completely objective on the subject of male circumcision
Perhaps - but I prefer to take the position that if i’m born with it, it’s likely that it’s supposed to be there. IMO that’s a pretty reasonable position to take.And equally, it is close to impossible for an uncircumcised male to be completely objective on the subject of male circumcision
jonby said:
bmwmike said:
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.Only someone who has had theirs chopped of could ever say that.
It does FFS
And equally, it is close to impossible for an uncircumcised male to be completely objective on the subject of male circumcision
On the flip side a man cut at birth cannot possibly know what a foreskin feels like.
bmwmike said:
jonby said:
bmwmike said:
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.Only someone who has had theirs chopped of could ever say that.
It does FFS
And equally, it is close to impossible for an uncircumcised male to be completely objective on the subject of male circumcision
On the flip side a man cut at birth cannot possibly know what a foreskin feels like.
wc98 said:
i strongly suspect once the laws change to only allow voluntary circumcision once people hit 18 the numbers of ops will plummet .
Which is what those with a religious or cultural axe to grind are really worried about. They realise that no right thinking adult is going to let a stranger loose on his old fella with a scalpel for no good reason. Inflicting it on children is the only way the practice can be maintained and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that it does no harm, whilst they know in their heart that if they had been left intact until adulthood, there's no way they would volunteer for such a procedure, yet would happily subject their on sons to it. It's a morally bankrupt practice, those in favour of it know that and are using every means of self-justification (and self deception) they can summon to keep the practice alive.
jonby said:
I said impossible to be objective, not to know what having no foreskin feels like. Not the same thing. At all.
OK fair enough. Guess I should have read your post eh. Still disagree, I think it's quite possible to be objective. I see no valid argument for inflicting a medieval practice on an unconsenting human being in the 21st century.RTB said:
wc98 said:
i strongly suspect once the laws change to only allow voluntary circumcision once people hit 18 the numbers of ops will plummet .
Which is what those with a religious or cultural axe to grind are really worried about. They realise that no right thinking adult is going to let a stranger loose on his old fella with a scalpel for no good reason. Inflicting it on children is the only way the practice can be maintained and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that it does no harm, whilst they know in their heart that if they had been left intact until adulthood, there's no way they would volunteer for such a procedure, yet would happily subject their on sons to it. It's a morally bankrupt practice, those in favour of it know that and are using every means of self-justification (and self deception) they can summon to keep the practice alive.
I mean amongst all jews/muslims, including those who have 'left' the religion of their birth or who identify as jewish/muslim from a heritage/community viewpoint but don't practice, not just those who choose to practice the religion in an observant manner whom one might consider, to one degree or another, to be brainwashed.
Obviously not the exact figures, just approximate ones. Or perhaps some meaningful anecdotal evidence ?
jonby said:
How big a problem is this issue ?
It depends on whether you can measure the ethical implications of a practice by the number of complaints. The central question is should it be acceptable to inflict an unneeded surgical procedure on someone without their consent. Whether it does harm or not is really a side issue. I guess we will all take a position and at some point there may be a tipping point where such things are looked on as backward or unacceptable (I think we're heading that way with circumcision of children).
When I was a kid pretty much every parent (and quite a few teachers) would think nothing of hitting the kids in their charge, now we're talking about making smacking illegal (and a teacher who struck a child would never work again), not because of complaints or "harm done" but because the zeitgeist has moved on and the groundswell of opinion is that it is no longer an acceptable practice, in spite of the fact that many of us who suffered the odd thrashing would pragmatically maintain that "it did us no harm."
RTB said:
Which is what those with a religious or cultural axe to grind are really worried about. They realise that no right thinking adult is going to let a stranger loose on his old fella with a scalpel for no good reason. Inflicting it on children is the only way the practice can be maintained and so they will argue until they are blue in the face that it does no harm, whilst they know in their heart that if they had been left intact until adulthood, there's no way they would volunteer for such a procedure, yet would happily subject their on sons to it.
It's a morally bankrupt practice, those in favour of it know that and are using every means of self-justification (and self deception) they can summon to keep the practice alive.
100% spot on.It's a morally bankrupt practice, those in favour of it know that and are using every means of self-justification (and self deception) they can summon to keep the practice alive.
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!
My friend had his done when he was young due to medical reasons. He drunkenly confessed to never ever being able to come from masturbation alone. fk that! Even when I’m getting as much sex as your average PH stud muffin I still enjoy ripping the head off it.Personally I’ve always had a large foreskin (my mates all take the piss saying I have a 12 inch foreskin trapped on a 7 inch cock). It was quite tight and made using condoms difficult as it kept pulling back over the glands when I was erect. I went through a spell where I kept snapping my banjo so looked into my options. The negatives of circumcision were too great to even consider so I had a frenuplasty instead and was back in work the following day.
dai1983 said:
My friend had his done when he was young due to medical reasons. He drunkenly confessed to never ever being able to come from masturbation alone. fk that! Even when I’m getting as much sex as your average PH stud muffin I still enjoy ripping the head off it.
Personally I’ve always had a large foreskin (my mates all take the piss saying I have a 12 inch foreskin trapped on a 7 inch cock). It was quite tight and made using condoms difficult as it kept pulling back over the glands when I was erect. I went through a spell where I kept snapping my banjo so looked into my options. The negatives of circumcision were too great to even consider so I had a frenuplasty instead and was back in work the following day.
k that! Even when I’m getting as much sex as your average PH stud muffin I still enjoy ripping the head off it.Personally I’ve always had a large foreskin (my mates all take the piss saying I have a 12 inch foreskin trapped on a 7 inch cock). It was quite tight and made using condoms difficult as it kept pulling back over the glands when I was erect. I went through a spell where I kept snapping my banjo so looked into my options. The negatives of circumcision were too great to even consider so I had a frenuplasty instead and was back in work the following day.
How do your mates know you're sporting a windsock?
Dromedary66 said:
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.Evolution in humans is skewed anyway due to medicine. People survive to reproduce when in the wild they wouldn't have done.
You're just jealous you don't have one.
Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Isn't it the wrong way around. Surely those who have been circumcised as children, should be vehemently anti, whereas people who haven't been cut should be the ones saying "what's all the fuss about?".
The main drivers of the anti FGM movement are women who have been victims. Why does that not follow thru for circumcision?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Firstly, you don't know if I have one or not. I don't think I've commented either way.
Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Isn't it the wrong way around. Surely those who have been circumcised as children, should be vehemently anti, whereas people who haven't been cut should be the ones saying "what's all the fuss about?".
The main drivers of the anti FGM movement are women who have been victims. Why does that not follow thru for circumcision?
Does one have to drunk to be anti drink driving?Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Isn't it the wrong way around. Surely those who have been circumcised as children, should be vehemently anti, whereas people who haven't been cut should be the ones saying "what's all the fuss about?".
The main drivers of the anti FGM movement are women who have been victims. Why does that not follow thru for circumcision?
You are vehemently anti FGM, rightly so, from, I'd hazard a guess that yoy are free
that particular horror.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff