So is it OK if I cut off just little tiny slice of your clitoris?

Not the whole thing - that would be barbaric. Just a little bit.
A little tiny slice.... you'll hardly notice it.

In fact, by doing so, you'll be happier, healthier and stronger. Trust me. Why would I lie?

So ladies, please... just line up. All I'm asking is for a little tiny slice of your clitoris.

Oh god... that's a crazy, barbaric idea. But we can do it to a boy's foreskin and it's not important.

I am so on your side, believe me...

but i've been around long enough to know that this will be interesting, or locked.

:popcorn: (and this experience is on multiple forums, not just this one!)

The entire concept of this thread hurts to think about.

Rp

Preach on, Brutha!

For the record, I agree with you, and I am uncut. I fear the circumcised don't know what they're missing out on.

and yes, that's a real thing!

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64254,00.html?tw=wn_5culthead

info here for those interested...

I can't imagine that the experience of intercourse - or even masturbation - would be anything other than dimmed by circumcision.

that the extra skin makes it almost unecessary to use lubrication during masturbation...

Confession, and I find myself genuinely astonished that this experience isn't more widely shared (I don't tend to discuss it much): I have NEVER used lubrication in masturbation, simply because I have never seen any need to.

Seriously, the circumcised don't know what they're missing. Mrs T has also expressed her distaste for the idea of cutting. But then we're in the UK where circumcision is much rarer.

I can't believe I'm talking about my penis. I have a strong feeling I may regret this.

if you watch american television, you might hear the old joke about finding the bottle of lotion and a box of kleenex or a tube sock next to the bed. In my humble, limited experience in the matter, men prefer lube during a full session of masturbation, and that experience did not include uncirc'd penises (peni?).

I am a bit embarassed to bring up personal experience as well... :blush:

We have said all we need to say.

:hide:
I do think it added much to the debate, so thanks for sharing.

The clitoris is not analogous to foreskin.

much of its sensitivity, similar to what happens to the glans of the penis after male circ.


What is female genital mutilation?

Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:

* Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris;
* Type II - excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora;
* Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);
* Type IV - pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue;
* scraping of tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice (angurya cuts) or cutting of the vagina (gishiri cuts);
* introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina to cause bleeding or for the purpose of tightening or narrowing it; and any other procedure that falls under the definition given above.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Hasn't been a problem for me.

Any more sensitivity and I wouldn't make it past unzipping.

unless the penis is erect.

Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either it makes your wang have less stimulation or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Plus most chicks like 'em circed. The turtle-neck is a turn-off.

most women in the US may prefer the appearance of a circ'd, flaccid penis, but the appearance is the virtually the same when aroused. And most women in the US have had little to no exposure to a natural penis.

It sure is nice not having to worry about smegma though.

and an uncut man can easily clean his penis, as the forskin retracts from the head quite well. this occurs in early childhood.

My circed wang: looks better, is easier to clean, doesn't grow smegma, still functions very well, there's no effective difference in sensitivity since I can't remember what it is like when I had one, and I don't remember the procedure at all.

Hmmm... remind me again why I would want a fore-skin?

some say it looks better, not all.

it's not easier to clean, simple, normal hygiene will suffice

It depends on the cut done if there is any smegma growth possible

It could function better

there could be increased sensitivity if you regained your foreskin

maybe you might want one because you were born with one?

I am not trying to convince you to regrow your foreskin, but you asked!

all I am asking is that you accept that it might not be such a good idea for society to continue doing it to infant boys in the future! I understand this might be a lot to ask, since it requires you to rethink how you feel about it being done to you, but this is the only way it will change.

you can be disappointed that it was done to you without your permission without condemning your parents or hating your penis as it is today.

sheesh, I so did not mean for the conversation to take this fork...

If you look at the rate of circumcision among all three groups it would be absurd to say that these women never came across an uncircumcized penis and they all said they preferred a cut one....


You and the op like your uncut penis that's cool...Most of us with cut penises like ours just fine...

peers of 90+%

and if you read on, you will find that I have no, personal, experience with uncut penises. I researched this for a client and came away with a personal opinion that my male child(ren) will be circumcised over my dead body.

and if you read on you will also find I understand why you like yours just fine...it makes sense you would not miss something you never had.

I just told you that I have had sex with women where circumcision is not the norm and they preferred a circumcised one...



I do what I am missing...


Believe me I know what a uncircumcised penis looks like and I am happy with my circumcized penis...


It's a personal choice....

too bad it wasn't your adult personal choice...that's all I advocate for, that it truly is a PERSONAL choice, not the choice of parents. It should be up to the owner.

I am not saying you shouldn't like your penis. enjoy. but how can you ever expect to know what sex or masturbation might feel like with the original parts included?

Please read the whole thread before making more assumptions, I think you will get a better idea of where I stand on this, and what research I have done. I hate to retype everything I have said here already.

edited:spelling

in the hospital for my baby boy, I really had not thought much about it. It is so common that I think many parents really can't fully think about all the implications when they are really, really, tired after birth. It did give me pause before I said ok, but the implications of not having it done seemed so complex at the time that I just accepted that this was the norm.

What they tell you at the time, are the normative and hygenic reasons for doing it. But I'm sure the debate will continue. :shrug:

Perhaps parents should have their boys have nose jobs at birth to prevent this discrimination.

Maybe we should leave babies with tails alone too. Who are we to decide for a child whether or not he grows up with a useless appendage that they won't miss and will have no memory of having removed.

Going off of that logic.

if you've never used one?

take a survey. You'll find a lot of us don't really care. I'll bet it's the difference that women find...different, not the idea itself. After a generation of fewer circs, most people will be unstartled by it.

Only about half will be circ'ed. It will become more and more commonplace to not be mutilated, and eventually a circ'ed penis will be the "odd man out".

and that is fine for you, but how could you know what you are missing,

one man I met said 'sex un-circ'd was a 10, sex circ'd was a 5, and sex with a restored foreskin is an 8' (he had a circ in adulthood for his girlfriend, who was 'grossed out' by his foreskin. they did not remain a couple after the recovery from his surgery)

It is logical to see that a sheathed glans would be more sensitive to an unsheathed one. rubbing against diapers, underwear, sheets, towels, clothing, etc... for a lifetime would desensitize it. doesn't mean that sex isn't great for circ'd men, obviously it is, but it could be better-

You can get circumcised anytime you choose, but you didn't have a choice in the matter. I'm cut and don't miss my foreskin, but I wouldn't do it to a baby.

surgical procedure to remove it from anorgasmic women. Don't know if the precedure is still done, though.

fact that in the US, male circ is seen as okay, while female is seen as horrific (which it is)

online petition!!! :evilgrin:

Let it be noted to all that are reading this thread. I did not talk about my penis. Sheesh.

No, it's not the same. There are identifiable and real positive benefits from male circumcision.

And the ladies like it better, and who could blame them?


Sure, when we were monkey men running around with our stuff hanging out, the anteater snout made sense. But I'm not a monkey man, are you?



Plame Game, the spy who shagged me
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/

I find that rather offensive. Rather, to coin a phrase, "snippy".

Besides, female opinion on the subject is divided (believe me, I know), and the ladies will rarely see the "snout" anyway ... :D

Oh... O-K....

I have 3 sons, and I let the doctors talk me into my oldest son's procedure. I could hear him screaming down the hall. They do this at 24 hours after birth - no anethesia.

I really did not want this that time and after hearing my baby screamiing like that my mind was made up, no more of it unless THEY decide that is what they want when they grow up.

As for the treatment of females, I think your comparisons are a bit off. And I think most religions really don't like women much. Obviously women are not meant to enjoy sex in these cultures.

I couldn't imagine doing this to my son and made very sure the doctor knew we (hubby and me) were against it. Funny thing was, we were in Germany and the procedure is not routine at all - it has to be requested and, presumably paid for, separately. The doctor was quite amused that we made such a point of telling him NOT to do this - when he had no thought or intention of doing it in the first place.

Said son is now a big strapping 22 year old and AFAIK has a normal sex life for his age - he has girlfriends who have presumably seen his "hoody."

As with most responders there is no "equivalent" comparison between clitorectomy and circumcision ... but, with that said ... I am not a supporter of genital mutilation.

:rofl:

btw When I was pregnant with my son, I thoroughly researched the benefits and drawbacks associated with circumcision. The pivotal fact which led to my decision was the procedure (tying the newborn down to a board and forcing that cap on). My son was not circumcised and he has not suffered from anything other than being one of the few that still has what he was born with left intact.

Of male circumcision. My mom told me when they did it, there was a lot of blood and a lot of screaming in pain.

Don't believe in none of them there religious rites of sacrifice! Like my bodies in their natural state, non-circumcised! And didn't you mean to say that the gods must be crazy?

This is SO stupid. My parents and wife are not "mutilators".

I would hate for my earliest experience in life to be getting my genitals whacked with a knife.

Circumcision may offer Africa AIDS hope
Procedure linked to much lower rate of new HIV infections



French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

about the "aesthetic benefits" of a cut penis? Tastes are wide-ranging on all manner of things, I don't expect it's any different in this matter.

eom

Kenroy (707 posts) Tue Oct-25-05 08:31 AM
Original message
So is it OK if I cut off just little tiny slice of your clitoris?
Not the whole thing - that would be barbaric. Just a little bit.
A little tiny slice.... you'll hardly notice it.

In fact, by doing so, you'll be happier, healthier and stronger. Trust me. Why would I lie?

So ladies, please... just line up. All I'm asking is for a little tiny slice of your clitoris.

(((((((((Oh god... that's a crazy, barbaric idea. But we can do it to a boy's foreskin and it's not important)))))))))))))))

to stoke that umbrage. It's about circumcizing infants, not what an "abomination" a cut penis is.

The only thing they have in common is the age at which it performed....

It's about taking a razor to someone before he's old enough to consent.

some relate it to male circ. while not exactly the same, there are similarities.

and I wait for more information about the parameters of said study that just came out, I question the methods, since an earlier study in the same country with the same results was later found to be very suspect in their methodology.

That was the purpose of the link...

Now you're trying to peg me into your prefitted hole.

I beg your pardon?

recommends routine male circumcision of infants for health reasons...

and the results of this one study (if found to be valid) won't be enough to change what you will find looking for said support...which is zero.

You prefer an uncut penis... I don't....


Let's agree to disagree....


I like my circumcised penis.... My sexual partners have to a one liked my circumcised penis ......


That's enough for me....


If you feel so strongly about it have the Democratic National Committee add an anti-male circumcision plank to the 2008 presidential platform....

please read the thread. I married a man who was circ'd. I understand they function just fine. I adore mine! but...I understand that it could be that much better for both of us if it hadn't been done. that takes nothing away from him or his fantastic penis.

here is one thing I found that compels me to discuss this...posted elsewhere in this thread of course...

http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

Three Experiments for the Reader

The first is a thought experiment. Suppose an adult man was kidnapped off the street, tied down kicking and screaming to a table and forcibly sexually mutilated. Would this be a crime? If so, why is it not a crime when inflicted on an infant boy? At what age do males graduate from testosterone-tainted meat sculptures to sentient human beings?

The second is a social experiment. Try discussing this issue with others. You may find a great resistance, even among human rights activists of both genders, to the notion that males have rights which are being violated in this country. Whos (or rather, what) interest continues to be served by trivializing the human rights of one half of the population? From the standpoint of biocomplexity, division is the first step towards reorganization and assimilation. The tiresome reenactment of the divide-and-conquer strategy will continue until conscious people transcend it.

The last experiment can only be carried out by a circumcised man. Run your fingers lightly along the length of your erect penis. Where does it feel best? Right behind the head? Guess what: that's all that's left of your foreskin, and it's not even the best part. Think about it: if sexual ecstasy is nature's inducement to reproduce, where is the sensible place to put the most erogenous nerves? On the bottom of the feet? Behind the ears? At the back end of the penis? No, it would be at the front end of the penis, the part that would go inside the vagina.

Thankfully, (circumcised) men can greatly improve their sex lives via "foreskin restoration", a non-surgical skin-stretching process which is widely practiced in the USA. See the links below.

(fleabert speaking here, I don't like that this otherwise intelligent suggestion stoops to use the phrase 'testosterone-tainted meat sculptures', that's a bit much and inflammatory, imo. I also changed one word, since I don't want a firestorm -it was extreme imo, it's in parentheses, you can find the original word on the site)

(I am not being glib about this, the least you can do is respond in kind)

You are trying to convince me to not like my circumcised penis....


I couldn't be more happy with it.....


Everybody needs a cause.... Your cause is ending male circumcision.... That's your right...



I don't want to do all those experiments on my penis.... When my fiancee gets back from LA I'll have her perform them on me...

He's saying that a person should have a choice in the matter rather than losing his foreskin in infancy without his permission. Why take it as an attack your... "member"?

Circumcision is routinely performed on all males as part of Islamic and Jewish religion belief....



Given the fact that there are so many of them you would think if this was the draconian procedure the op suggests there would be more of a hue and cry....

it's up to the parents. And I suspect it would be pretty painful to be circumsized later on in life, it that is what the person wanted. I don't think it hurts to have a debate, but it's really absurd to think that all parents can think so far ahead, esp. when the medical extablishment has the view that medically this is the best thing, at least that is what they tell you at the time. Most parents are primarily concerned that their child is healthy, not about what his sex life will be life in adulthood.

You said, and I quote, "You Ignored The Obvious Health Benefits"

And FYI:

My husband is circ'ed

I've never been with an un-circ'ed man

Both my sons are circ'ed (if you care to read their story, go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5158726#5160236)

Yet both I and my husband acknowledge that circumcision is unnecessary medically.

Aesthetics are a very weak argument for cutting off healthy and normal sections of one's body at birth.

When the next generation becomes sexually active, at least half will be uncirc'ed.

I like my cut penis....


I like the way it looks...


Aeesthetics to me is important....



I'm an aesthete...

That you stated were obvious.

You're being evasive.

Aesthetics are a mature choice. Newborns don't give a shit about aesthetics.

like what many of the Egyptian men or all those other nation's peoples, who standardly accept ritual mutilation might say about an un-circumcised woman...aesthetics are what counts? The myth of smelly ugly genitalia, found in its natural state, being a turn-off or "unhealthy" somehow is a pretty common religious hang-up, you know.

That study sound like some sort of religious propaganda to me. What kind of guys participated in such a thing?

The advocates do not deny it...



Male circumcision is done for cleanliness.... That is why Jews circumcise their male children...


Now we can argue all day whether or not circumcision achieves those goals but one can't logically argue that the motivation for the two procedures is the same...

If it weren't for the Covenant With God thing, I doubt we'd be doing it today because it would never have become a common practice.

If parents don't want to cut their male babies that's their choice... I take umbrage at the comparison that some folks make between the cutting off of the foreskin of a male and a procedure that removes the labias of women and in its more extreme form leaves women with an opening barely largely enough to menstruate or urinate...

He proposed taking a small snip, which is enough to horrify most people. His example is apt. It's not about infibulation, nor is it "anti-circumcision", you just assumed it was.

I should just cut and paste...


If you believe that female and male circumcisions are similar procedures and have similar long term results there isn't anything I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

It's not there.

If *I* believe... can't disabuse me... SHEEEESH.

You won.....

"Not the whole thing - that would be barbaric. Just a little bit.
A little tiny slice.... you'll hardly notice it.

In fact, by doing so, you'll be happier, healthier and stronger. Trust me. Why would I lie?

So ladies, please... just line up. All I'm asking is for a little tiny slice of your clitoris. (FEMALE CIRCUMCISION)

Oh god... that's a crazy, barbaric idea. But we can do it to a boy's foreskin and it's not important. (MALE CIRCUMCISION)"


Nah, the OP didn't compare the two procedures....


YOU WON!

Projections and accusations. Swell.

I read a paragraph and described what was in the paragraph and I'm projecting and accusing...



"Not the whole thing - that would be barbaric. Just a little bit.
A little tiny slice.... you'll hardly notice it.

In fact, by doing so, you'll be happier, healthier and stronger. Trust me. Why would I lie?

So ladies, please... just line up. All I'm asking is for a little tiny slice of your clitoris. (FEMALE CIRCUMCISION)

Oh god... that's a crazy, barbaric idea. But we can do it to a boy's foreskin and it's not important" (MALE CIRCUMCISION)

Let's make this an SAT question....


Please read the above paragraph... The author is discussing

a) rhinoplasty


b) arthroscopic surgery


c) neural surgery


d) circumcision....


hmmmmmmm........


a


that's the ticket...

Claiming you can't disabuse me of a belief I don't have is... projecting and accusing.

You ought to foward to the UN your findings that FGM is snippage of "a little tiny slice of your clitoris". They'll be relieved to hear it's not the bloody meathacking they thought it was.

"a little tiny slice of your clitoris".



I'm vaguely familiar with Focault and deconstructionism but I don't know how you can "deconstruct" my words to attribute to me a position I was railing against.....



YOU WON........

Yes, that's what the OP said, that's why I included it (I wasn't quoting YOU, good grief!). That's the point. He's not describing FGM or likening FGM to male circumcision. He made an analogous situation for females to contrast the shock it provokes compared to the blithe attitude for males.

by Abraham, to his god in the Old Testament. Nothing to do with cleanliness; probably the ULTIMATE sacrifice, tho, for many of his tribe at the time. Religious rites are mighty weird all over the world, I'd say.

I don't want to argue with you either, but I honestly see no difference between the two procedures being done to children with no choice in the matter.

And my former husband was cut, it definitely reduced both of our sexual pleasure, as I now have had many years experience with a "turtle neck", as you put it, to know the difference.

That was the other poster...


He was displaying a prejudice but in the other direction...


If someone likes an uncut penis that's fine with me...I like my cut penis....



In extreme female circumcision they leave a woman with a opening just large enough to urinate and menstruate... In male circumcision they remove the foreskin...


If you see these procedures as similar there is nothing I or anyone can do to disabuse you of that notion...

We should just agree to disagree then, I guess. I didn't mean to demean you or your penis. But what you said about the "aesthetics" really is an argument used for both procedures and I think it's just another way of excusing both practices, which are actually meant to reduce sexual pleasure in both men and women. Different strokes for different cultures!

Having anyone's body altered should be the personal choice of the individual, I think. And cultures who advocate against that freedom, for whatever reason, or however subtly, are wrong.

"I didn't mean to demean you or your penis. "

Lord, I love this thread.

On your other post in here, you said the "other thread". Could you direct me to that one; who started this sort of topic, anyway? It's a strange morning for all!

Take a deep breath, because it's LONG:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5158726

It's actually a nicer thread, because there's less fighting.

That's the one thing I would not change other than to use it more....

I MIGHT as well have a post in THIS thread too, considering the other thread.

In that other thread I mentioned that I've only had boyfriends who are circumcised and YES I do think that circumcised ones are ALSO nicer to look at. So to me, they are aesthetically attractive and my preference.

I wouldn't dream of starting a thread to slam people who prefer not to be circumcised...


It's a personal choice....



To me that's what being a liberal is all about...

A most UNFORTUNATE choice of wording, considering.

I also pointed out later in that other thread, that although I prefer a circumcised penis, that I did respect a parents choice OR a man's choice to remain uncircumcised.

performed on an infant.

"ready for action".

In other circumstances the male member is never going to win any beauty contests.

Am I EXPECTED to hide under the bed UNTIL it's "ready FOR action"? ;)

I would have thought their "special friends" wouldn't be visible the rest of the time ... boxers 'n all ...

Well, I WAS specifically refering to the time spent in the bedroom and you know, other areas of the house. But there's nothing wrong with nakedness, especially around the house, you shouldn't have to wear clothes really unless you're going out somewhere.

because it would have the same effect ...

Locking in 3 - 2 - 1

:popcorn:

:nuke:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/improbable/0,12186,1078493,00.html

snip...

Fuller's patent (US 5589161) for using foreskins to test skin-tanning solutions is the ne plus ultra on how to use foreskins to test skin-tanning solutions. One of his main aims, his website informs us, is "to develop skincare products that can stimulate melanin production (tanning) in fair-skinned individuals". Five of his 11 foreskin-related patents, though, are about how to make skin become lighter. The newest, called "Method for Causing Skin Lightening", features a 1,300-word exposition about foreskins.

/snip..

And on a more serious note.....

Male circumcision reduces HIV risk by 60%, says study

A study into the spread of HIV, the virus that leads to Aids, has found that male circumcision significantly protects men from picking up the infection.

The finding, though cautiously welcomed, presents a headache for health officials who fear that communities where male circumcision is common might neglect more effective protective measures such as using condoms and reducing their number of sexual partners.

The study, which followed infection rates in more than 3,000 heterosexual men over nearly two years, found that circumcision reduced a man's risk of acquiring HIV by 60%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1599979,00.html

:loveya:

Really, this is a ridiculous argument. If you have some sort of religious obligation, then it's fine.

But really, there's no need for health or anything else to circumcise.

For the love of "OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD" leave them alone.

For the love of "OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD" leave them alone.

we chose not to do that to progspawn.

Whether male circumcision itself is right or wrong nothwithstanding, when it IS done, WHY DON'T they use anesthesia????

I've never understood that.

eom

I should have said "anesthetic" rather than "anesthesia".
Can't they numb it with something topical like Novocaine?
Baby Glansbesol??

Medical practitioners believed that infants did not feel pain (I guess the theory was that the nervous system was not adequately developed).

Hey, wait a minute? :9

I'm cut (sorry for the overshare, folks) and I really don't see what the big deal is. I imagine it would be hard to keep that area clean otherwise.

1. pull back

2. wash

easy! no harder than all the places a woman has to clean everyday.

if i'm having a son, i'm leaving the choice up to him rather than making it for him. it's HIS 'stuff'.

just watch National Geographic or something? I know in some third-World Countries certain "tribes" do this to women. There is a small amount of similar foreskin on the clitoris and this is removed. Once that is done,the clitoris is so sensitive, it is torture for the woman to have sex anymore.

As far as males being circumcised . . . you have a better chance of getting a BJ with the foreskin gone. I sure as Hell wouldn't touch one if it didn't.

In closing I have one more question to ask. Did you recently have a circumcision done as an adult because it wasn't taken care of when you were a baby? It's a lot harder on a boy and/or man the older they get when they have a circumcision done. They have stitches and it's not completely outpatient procedure.

Probably told you more than you needed to know.

The one titled:

"Male Circumcision reduces HIV risk by 60%"

It's ANOTHER HUGE thread here in General Discussion. And I think I might have upset Kenroy by stating that I ONLY like circumcised pieces. And I didn't mean to upset him, I was just being truthful. Oh and it got to the point where people where stating that there was NO difference between male circumcision and female MUTILATION.

I'm SORRY, the thought of a blow-job with an uncircumcised penis, this REALLY makes me feel sick...but it's about personal preference I know that.

Also, if I were a male and therefore had a penis, then I would want it to be circumcised.

...and they said that the clitoris plays a pivotal role in female sexual experience, while no functionality is lost by male circumcision. So then I said, well what if we just remove some of the labia? Then, they had no argument, but still wouldn't admit that it was all genital mutilation.

And the more private and reclusive the idea the longer it takes to shift. Champion the causes you support. But do not be suprised when others do not share your zeal.

good morning zuni :party:

:grr:

hasn't been locked or vanished to the ether! Someone call the FBI! The mods have been kidnapped!

analagous to the clitoris, as you should know.

If you read the whole thread many are saying the practices (and) the results are equivalent....


I tried to disabuse them of that notion and have failed....



Hopefully you will be more successful.....

And, gave us waaaay too much information about your penis, in the process. :)

Thanks for contributing to making this thread one of the really enjoyable ones I have read in a while.

I think....

I get what you're trying to say about circumcision, but the clitoris is a lot more than a flap of skin. You can't really compare them in this way. Now, if you said you will remove the flaps of skin around the clitoris, that would be a more accurate comparison.

As I understand, there are no reasons of general health or safety to justify infant circumcision. I would never subject a child of mine to that procedure and I'm guessing that many people witnessing the procedure (for other than religous reasons and I am NOT going into that) on their first child would be unwilling to witness it on subsequent children.

What are you saying?

"Cheapen the discourse for everyone"

Can't set the bar any lower than this.

This topic is being discussed on another thread already, and has been done many, many too many times already. There's only so much that can be said about the subject, and it doesn't really have any connection to politics, as in DEMOCRATIC message boards.

Should be posted somewhere else.

Contacting the Admin or Mods might help

in a marriage, i will bet you. it isnt the mommy pushing this. or certainly not just the mommy. i was a ok with boys penis in tact. not having one, i left it to hubby. that was a decade ago. since,..... i see even less reason for it

religious reasons. I couldn't budge him on it so told him he had to be there for the procedure and be the one to help them heal afterwards if he was going to force that on them.

The truth is most daddies want their little boys to match them.

needs to be addressed in the male world too, has nothing to do with my clitoris

Perhaps a topic worthy of discussion, but this thread has received too many alerts to keep it open. Thanks.