Would you consider having an infant's earlobes cut off at birth as "mutilation"?

What is the substantial difference between removing the useless earlobes and the useless foreskin?

adjustments for balance. That's why some peoples earlobes are not the same size. And no, I wouldn't cut off my child's earlobes and I didn't have my sons circumcised.

Earlobes have nothing to do with it.

SPOCK ears!

Take the earlobes and sew them on the *top* of the ear..

That's the ticket..

Like Dobermans..

Who knows, it might catch on..

Dangling earlobes are just so damn fugly..

along with tail docking. Funny you should mention such an arcane subject, as we talked about it on the groop-dogwalk this morning.

It was originally intended to make the animal look alert and agressive.

to hang bling.

Hmmm. That might be a good reason to remove foreskins ...

:rofl:

And none of the pro circ crowd have checked in..

Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63


Not only can circumcision save your life but it can save your partner's life as well...Seems like a noble thing to do:


"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."

In developed countries..

And besides, the supposed therapeutic value of circumcision is only a very recent discovery.

Not to mention you did not answer my question.

Would you consider removing an infant's earlobes at birth as mutilation?

Yes or no.

But I don't compare removing one's earlobes to having one's foreskin removed...Many people find the latter procedure, therapeutic as well as aesthetically pleasing...

And as I pointed out, the benefits of circumcision have only recently been discovered while circumcision has been popular in the US for about a century.

I thought most circumcisions were arranged by parents for their babies.

How do we know that these babies derived therapeutic pleasure? Is it aesthetically pleasing to these babies or their parents?

Does anyone have figures?

And to the OP - great question.

Sp.

Not "therapeutic pleasure"


Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.


....




Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

so how do these babies find it therapeutic? And for whom is it aesthetically pleasing? Surely not the babies.

Because it reduces the child's chances of getting HIV/AIDS, penile cancer, bladder infections, and STDs later in life...

It's also reduces the risk by 300% that he will be a carrier of the humanpappiloma virus and give his potential sexual partners cervical cancer...

The aesthetic benefits are subjective but anecdotally at least in America and in Islamic nations circimcumcision is the norm...

According to your own links, the qualifiers "may", "might", "indicate", etc. appear throughout these clinical trials' reports, so your affirmation of unimpeachable proof is pre-mature.

Nobody knows the key question though...WHY? No laboratory study has been able to successfully replicate the clinical trial of the HPV carrier study. Exactly WHY, praytell do naturally born men carry the virus in such numbers, and the man made "cured" men don't?

Regarding aesthetics, it's a non-issue. My cock isn't yours to rip apart to make it look pretty. USA and Islam. Two of the most violent cultures on the earth (to each other as well as others around them). Let me use these African study doctors' reasoning and say there could be a connection there.

Even with a bleeding disorder!

I couldn't believe the crap I had to go through to keep him in one *piece*. :grr: His Dad practically had to stand guard over him until someone finally made big notes in his records AND put signs on his crib.

"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

playing the cervical cancer card makes for a particularly offensive and pathetic display of misandry. circumcision is a crime. anyone who circumsizes their child is an asshole.

Wow-can't argue with flawless logic like that...

or do you have a valid reason to sexually mutilate a child?

1) It reduces the rik of HIV/AIDS:


Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

2) It reduces the risk of transmitting the humanpappiloma virus that is responsible for cervical cancer in women by 300%:



Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

3) It reduces the incidence of penile cancer:


The National Cancer Institute (NCI) says men who are not circumcised (Read about "Circumcision") at birth may have a higher risk for getting cancer of the penis.

http://www.stayinginshape.com/3osfcorp/libv/c27.shtml

Amputation of the penis would undoubtedly reduce the risk of penile cancer. Chastity belts would cut down the transmission rates of HPV.

stop apologizing for mutilation. Circumcision is inexcusable.

Why don't you take your fucking obsessions elsewhere and reserve this border for something useful?

Jesus H Christ!

Would you agree with that?

Logic can be your friend...Embrace it...

>> circumcision is a crime. anyone who circumsizes their child is an asshole.>>

:eyes:

or should be at least.

definitive research. It does not apply to more developed countries. The fact that there appears to be a correlation in certain parts of the world does not necessarily imply a direct cause between circumcision and HIV transmission.

Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2

there are alternative methods to prevent the spread of such STDs which do not require intrusive surgery on an infant. Moreover, if the potential patient is so concerned with the transmission of such diseases, the decision could just as well be left up to him as he ages.

Practicing safe sex will go further than this silly little procedure that really is nothing more than an ancient egotistical ritual.


If you're so inclined to cut up for baby, go ahead.. but implying that those people who haven't had parts of their body removed are inherently "dirty" is ludicrous. (I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but I certainly have seen such implications made.)

I would wear two condoms if I could but the friction of one condom against the other defeats the purpose of both of them by making them more likely to tear...

That being said, by being monagamous, knowing our partners better, and wearing condoms we could reduce the risk of STDs, preganancy, and HIV/AIDS...

But since there are 3,000,000 new cases of STDs, 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS ,and 1,300,000 abortions in the United States every year I'd say safe sex is more of an ideal than an reality...


I have not used the "dirty" card except to the gentleman that implied I was mutilated... I have had African American, Asian, and European sexual partners, who presumably had sex or seen circumcised and uncircumcised men , and none told me I was mutilated... In fact a lot were relieved to find a cut sexual partner...

It is very true that the rate of cervical cancer in women is higher in women who have sex with uncircumcised men. That risk can be completely eradicated with hygiene. If the men keep it clean, the risk goes away.
I wouldn't chop on a baby boy. We simply don't have that right since we know that the cancer increase is a matter of cleanliness, not something inherent in the foreskin itself.
Lee

But the fact there are 3,000,000 new cases of STDs , 40,000 new cases of HIV/AIDS, and 1,300,000 abortions in the U S every year suggest safe sex is the ideal and not the reality...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2891124
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/06/21/male_circumcision_overstated_as_prevention_tool_against_aids.html

" It has been estimated that viral transmission rates may be reduced by as much as 60% through circumcision"

The authors of the research you cited contend that circumcision might be overrated as a prophylactic against HIV/AIDS...To a layman I interpet this as suggesting that there are other factors including promiscuity, unsanitary conditions , etcetera that affect the spread of HIV/AIDS... To me that means a person who has unsafe sex with multiple partners and those who have multiple partners can "overwhelm" the benefits of circumcision....

Or to put it another way , if a person has unprotected sex with a different prostitute every night the prophylactic value of circumcision is reduced.

This issue seems rather silly to me. Circumcision is simply a matter of personal choice, made by the parents of a child for reasons that are only the business of said parents. Like naming a kid 'Apple' (which I think is actually much more damaging)...

Is simply a matter of "choice"?

If not, apples and oranges, my friend.

I find ear lobes to be disgusting dangly pieces of useless cartilage.

Why should I not have them removed from my infant if I so choose?

I am anti-circumcision but earlobes are there for the whole world to see...and mock and scoff at, if you don't have them. The whole world doesn't see your penis. I hope.
Lee

At nude beaches..

The human body is beautiful, it is a shame to keep it covered all the time..

A relic of our Puritan ancestors..

...but a child won't spend it's life at a nude beach and everyone can see your earlobes.

I live in Austin. We have a legal nude beach, Hippie Hollow...that's even it's name on the maps...at one of our lakes and Austin is one of the only cities in the US where it's legal for women to go topless.
...and women nurse their babies all over the place here. It's lovely.

I agree about the Puritan crap. I like nakedness.
Lee

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Groan... the world's going to hell in a hand basket and DUers are arguing over personal decisions which are no one else's business. :eyes:

What is the essential difference which makes one mutilation and the other not?

I asked that in the OP and I see that you failed to answer it.

On edit: added an ess in asked.

My husband and I decided to have our son circumcized because we felt it was more hygenic. We are not Jewish, BTW. We had the usual set of problems raising him, but not one of them related to his circumcision.

Why is this such a big deal? Why are some people so angry about it? I've never known a circumsized male complain about having it done when he was an infant and had no say in the matter. And yet now it seems as if there are good reasons for it. So does the world have to come to an end?

Cmon folks...

It was part of my body. It was taken from me without my consent. It was my property, and it was stolen from me by a society that wanted to keep me from masturbating. I resent it, and I want it back, so if you find it...

Altho I take the other side in this argument I cannot argue with the way you feel about it. I am sorry that you have had this sadness with you for so long. And you are right: it IS your body.

Really, the entire family is born without earlobes. You don't notice it at first, but once they point it out, it becomes obvious. Their ears are also very small. Very strange little earlobe-less people.

Here's a reason I've yet to read...elderly men sometimes get pretty lax in their hygiene. Ever been around a 75 yo diabetic who has to be circumcised? Not pleasant.

I'm thinking they get antibiotics. Why isn't the same done for elderly men with UTIs?

I think most physicians would say it's best to eliminate the need for antibiotics in the first place

We can eliminate most infections by simpling washing our hands... I imagine keeping your genitals clean would help in that regard also...

Are women's genitals altered so they're easier for nursing home staff to clean?

eom

But women get UTIs much much more often than men.

Maybe it's rate of reoccurance. :shrug:

Especially older people... It destroys the flora in the stomach causing uncontrollable diarrhea

nt

transmission, I'd consider it a silly but mostly harmless custom, like putting holes in children's earlobes so they don't have to experience the pain as adults--and remember it.

Next?

Would you consider it mutilation?

Yes or no.

And if you answer no, then what body part removal would you consider to be mutilation.

The pinky finger, most people only use it for picking their nose or drinking tea in a hoitsy toitsy manner?

Oh, and touch typing.. But voice recognition is here and we no longer truly need to type.

Let me ask you one...

Since it's been established that uncircumcised man are three times as likely to carry the humanpappiloma virus that causes cervical cancer would you be opposed to a simple, relatively harmless procedure to remove that risk?

Why go with half measures? :)

I'll answer your question when you answer mine..

That way I don't have to worry about answering you.

The procedures aren't comparable... One is mutilation... The other isn't...

Besides the obvious medical benefits many people find a circumcised penis aesthetically pleasing...

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, when circumcision became popular in the US, the touted health benefits were entirely fictional.

Not to mention that the foreskin has at least one incontrovertible benefit, it acts as a form of dry lubricant during the penetration phase of intercourse.

The foreskin naturally slides back during insertion, considerably easing the process.

Of course, since you are mutilated you would not be aware of that.

That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard on the "internets"


Spoken like a true zealot...

Pure cold hard logic..

If cutting off earlobes is a form of mutilation then so is cutting off a foreskin.

And I have already provided one positive benefit of the foreskin with which you apparently have no argument.

Now, all you have to do is show me one positive benefit of earlobes to make your position equal to mine.

I don't have to demonstrate the benefits of earlobe removal because I have already conceded there are none that I am aware of...

I have demonstrated, as have others, that circumcision offers tangible medical benefits...

As far as the "sensation" argument -LOL- Based on the industry devoted to preventing premature ejaculation lack of sensation is the least of a man's problems...

You appear to be very good at reading what you wish rather than what is actually written.

I wrote that the foreskin acts as a dry lubricant which eases the pain for the woman upon insertion.

The foreskin slides back over the glans during insertion and substantially increases the comfort level for the woman.

Again, as a mutilated man yourself, you will not understand this.

As for premature ejaculation, that is primarily a problem for men who never or seldom masturbate.

It is quite easy to train oneself to withhold ejaculation as long as one wishes, particularly if you have a loving and helpful partner.

If you pound your pud a few times before coitus, premature ejaculation will not be much of a problem.

The problem with most men is that they enjoy orgasm but not particularly the act of coitus itself.

They basically train themselves to orgasm as rapidly as possible and then wonder why their partner is dissatisfied.

Let's make a deal... You don't mention mutilation and I won't mention smegma, head cheese, or "cocks in socks"... I can still remember some insensitive kids making jokes about the uncircumcised kids having to rolling up their foreskin to urinate... I find those jokes about as nonsensical as your "mutilation" comments...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm actually amused by it... LMFAO...

I am glad you are happy with your penis... I am very happy with my circumcised penis and my partners are as well...

But I don't know if you are suggesting malodorous genitals are a good thing or not...

Probably one of the most primitive and direct stimuli we have.

Scent has a lot to do with sexual attraction in many species and homo sapiens sapiens is among them.

The present fetish for cleanliness and lack of body odor is extremely recent in evolutionary terms..

"The present fetish for cleanliness and lack of body odor is extremely recent in evolutionary terms.. "

I doubt many men or women are going to put their head or heads in an area that doesn't smell good...

LOL...

"I wrote that the foreskin acts as a dry lubricant which eases the pain for the woman upon insertion.

The foreskin slides back over the glans during insertion and substantially increases the comfort level for the woman.

Again, as a mutilated man yourself, you will not understand this"


Hmmmm


"Many women complain of a lack of stimulation because a long or tight foreskin can stick to the walls of the vagina and their partners virtually masturbate themselves inside their own foreskins."


http://www.circlist.com/resources/resources.html

YIKES

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You don't even need a penis to do that...

But I note you did not answer the question.

eom

Oops sounds like you already have.

Circumcision has been, for a long time, about (among other things) hygienic reasons. You just can't deal with the fact that they were right and have been proved as much with recent scientific data.

They were right. You are wrong. Get over it. Don't you have some evolution science you could be denying or something?

eom

That was the touted health benefit at the time.

It has never been established. It's only been indicated. It can't be replicated in a lab.

Try a question with some verifiable facts in it.

You just didn't like the answer.

That one went so far over my head it was in the freakin' ionosphere..

I feel like circumcision is akin to tattooing or body piercing. Yes it was done without my approval, and no I never would have elected to have it done as an adult. I know that it caused deep persistent trauma, and I know I have missed out on a lot in terms of sexual sensations I never will experience.

At the same time every woman I've been with have said that's what they prefer. These are the same women who all pretty much are told they must peirce their ears, douche, and shave their entire bodies on a regular basis, so a little foreskin trim probably seems trivial.

While I'm sure many women tell 'complete' guys that they prefer men with foreskins, the number of women who elect to have their babies circumcised probably is an indication of how they really feel about it.

If lack of earlobes was a prevailing social norm in the culture and it could be done with low risk of infection and with anesthesia, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Would you consider removing the entire outer ear as mutilation?

In primitive societies where being able to accurately determine the location of a sound was a survival trait, the outer ear is a necessary body part.

In modern society audiolocation is not a survival trait and the outer ear is just a superfluous piece of cartilage.

You didn't like the answer, I guess, so now you want to make the question more extreme.

Before I answer again, we need to define terms.

Is the/your/our definition of mutilation "cutting off a necessary body part"? As opposed to an unnecessary body part, or any body part at all? Or would we/you define mutilation as any kind of body modification that didn't involve removal, such as tattoos?

We need to make sure that we're all on the same page with our terms before we can really have this discussion.

Dictionary.com defines "mutilate" as:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

And when you finally decide upon which of these definitions you would like to use, that still doesn't answer the question of, "is it ok" to mutilate an infant? Mutilate is an ugly word, with ugly connotations in the way you've used it in this thread, but the use of that word doesn't necessarily HAVE to indicate something evil or bad.

For example, by definition #1, any kind of body modification would count as "mutilation", including anything from ear piercing to cutting off the genitals entirely. Should parents in this culture pierce their infants' ears, or cut off their earlobes? In my opinion, sure, so long as the cultural norms indicate that the infant will be happy as an adult with pierced ears/no earlobes and there is little to no risk of serious health-related consequences resulting from that "mutilation". Should they cut off their infant's penis or clitoris? Well, even if a culture prescribes that act, I would argue no, because it would negatively impact that person's sexual functioning as an adult later. (Thus, why I don't approve of female genital mutilation, which can cause pain, infection, and inability to reach orgasm or have normal sexual relations in adulthood.)

Does the removal of foreskin negatively impact a person's sexual functioning and sexual health later? THAT'S the question that should be argued, in my opinion, not whether it's "mutilation" (which is, after all, just a label, an emotionally loaded word with negative connotations). If the answer is no, then I would argue for pro-circumcision.

Now, let's take definition #2 - depriving someone of an essential body part.

You asked specifically about the outer ear. Is it essential in today's society? I think I would argue yes, but just for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct, and it is an unnecessary body part. From that standpoint, then, cutting off the entire outer ear would NOT be mutilation under definition #2.

But does failing to assign the label of "mutilation" to that act make it ok to do it? Or if it was a necessary body part, would calling it "mutilation" make it a bad thing? You could call it Jack Shit or Nancy Drew, and it would still be what it is. The real question is, is it good or bad? Or neither?

I would still argue that if the cultural norms prescribed ear removal, AND the act would not impact the infant's health or happiness as an adult, it would be morally ok, which I'm pretty sure is really what you're asking when you ask about the word "mutilation". Of course, if the entire ear were a necessary body part in today's society, that would fall under the category of "negative health impact", making it not ok (and then you could call it mutilation if you wanted, assuming you were using definition #2). All in my opinion, of course, since morality is subjective.

Which brings us back, once again, to the question of: will circumcision negatively impact an adult male's health and happiness in this culture?

My husband is circumcised and he's never expressed any unhappiness with it. Neither did any of the other men I knew (in the Biblical sense) in my life before I was married. That is the sum of my personal knowledge on the matter, being a woman myself. I suppose you could argue that the men I've known have been brainwashed to the point that they don't realize how victimized they were as infants, but I don't think that argument would hold much merit with my husband.`

Several people on this threat have posted studies that suggest that there may actually be health benefits in adulthood for circumcised men vs. uncircumcised men. I'm a believer in science, so I find that type of evidence quite persuasive. If the anti-circumcision folks would care to post some studies of their own claiming that circumcision has negative effects on the majority of men, I'd be happy to take a look at those. However, I haven't seen any of that thus far in this thread or any other.

So, for now, I'm still leaning pro-circumcision, or at least "leave it up to the parents". Because my sense of morality about this particular type of issue involves the concept of negative health impact.

Your ethics with regard to this issue may of course be predicated on something else, such as the desire to have yourself and others be unadulterated physically. Now...Which one of us is right? That's unfortunately not a question that can be solved by arguing on the internet...

"Your ethics with regard to this issue may of course be predicated on something else, such as the desire to have yourself and others be unadulterated physically. Now...Which one of us is right? That's unfortunately not a question that can be solved by arguing on the internet..."

If so, then why did you bother to write such a lengthy tome in reply to what you consider a stupid question?

My daughter has her tongue pierced, she's an adult with three children of her own and it was her decision to do so. I still think it is mutilation.

When she was sixteen she got a tattoo on her ankle without our knowledge or approval, we didn't know about it for quite a few months, because she wore long socks constantly.

I don't consider tattooing to be mutilation, it does not remove a body part but simply decorate it.


1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

That definition is fine with me..

That last paragraph was entirely serious. I wasn't making fun of you or your topic.

If you subscribe to the first definition, then I can see why you would believe that circumcision is mutilation.

Is mutilation always bad?

:sigh:

Cruel and barbaric--I've seen many an infant and child cry at the ear piercing place in my area malls.

About Paris Hilton?

Did you shake your head at those?

I know I did..

Rejection of science in favor of emotional agendas. The evidence of the protective effects of circumcision is clear and so convincing that it's no longer ethical to run controlled studies. Yet for whatever reason, people simply refuse to accept the findings- if they even bother to read them.

The politicization of science needs to stop... I thought the Scopes Trial settled that...

And now you accuse me of being anti-science..

I'd be willing to wager that I know more of science than you do, unless you are a professional scientist.

I'll just point out that when circumcision became popular in the US, the touted benefits had absolutely nothing to do with the modern studies on disease and circumcision.

The primary benefit originally touted was that circumcised men would be less prone to "self pollute".

Do you know why they call the surgical removal of a woman's reproductive organs a "hysterectomy"?

It is because the procedure was thought to reduce hysteria in women.

and used loaded language. Pathos plain and simple.

Now, if you want to have a look at the science (logos)- it's easy enough to do.

Run a pub med search.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed

The search terms "HIV" "circumcision" would be a good place to start.

405 entries and/or commentaries in peer reviewed journals.

I am exactly as God made me..

since antiquity. A bris is a ceremony to which friends and family are invited and is supervised by a person designated by the religion to perform them safely. There are prayers and sometimes offerings of comments by friends and family. Bread is broken and a meal served.

I have been to brises that were beautiful ceremonies to welcome the male child into his family and a circle of people who are dedicated to his nurturance and his well being.

For the life of me, I cannot see how the Jews, who have been doing brises for countless years, are somehow guilty of "mutilation" of their male children. I am not Jewish but I feel that the Jews are among the best cultures in the world in caring for children. I don't think you can go around accusing the Jews of being mutilators of children!

the practice should be outlawed. Who cares what some "religion" says. Tell me how, exactly, it isn't cutting someone's penis apart.

but I am sure Jewish literature discusses your objection very seriously. I know that you are serious about this and I am sorry for any psychic pain the procedure has given you.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:spray: :rofl:

:rofl:

Ever since then no one, including a number of female sexual partners back in the time of free love, have ever mentioned the fact that I'm an anteater.

And besides, go to Europe and it is the helmet heads who would be likely to be the butt of jokes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh boy. :eyes:

Considering the thread premise, what did you expect?

"The perfect woman..
Posted by Jonathan50
Three feet tall, no teeth, and the top of her head is flat so you have somewhere to put your beer can."


____________

Are you sure you're at the right site?


What other antediluvian proverbs do you have to share with us?

Have a nice day!

:hi:

it's just bullshit and people only defend it out of guilt or out of fear.

If you choose to ignore the abundant research on the topic there's nothing I or anybody can do to compel you to...


Kind of like "they hate us for our freedom..."

for example, not having sexual relations with anyone will greatly reduce the chances of transnmitting HIV. Proclaiming a government enforced abstinence is still idiotic.

I think that might destroy the species in a generation...


Have a nice day...

I am sure that would win you lots of Jewish friends. :sarcasm:

Because I will say that. I'll say it to a Muslim, a Christian, to anyone who thinks that attacking an infant with a knife is a good idea. These asinine superstitions need to be roped in. People have suffered enough for this horseshit.

insulting people's religion and beliefs based on YOUR OPINION is very nice. Personally, as a Jew, I have NEVER heard any of the men in my family accept this as anything other than a small ceremony that is a nice and RELATIVELY painless procedure. Its not an "attack". I never ever heard anybody attack it as such until posting here on DU. Why don't you actually TALK to real people (ie who have had a bris done). In other words, in the real world this is NO BIG DEAL. Have it or not. That's your right. But don't treat others beliefs as "asinine" because of your OPINION. Sheesh. Bigotry is always such a pleasant way to start the week

god and/or gods do NOT exist. The onus is NOT on me to prove their non-existence but on any religious person to prove that they do. It cannot be done.

And yes, circumcision is indeed an unwarranted sexual assault.

I would gladly tell anyone to his or her face that circumcision of infants is vile abuse. Anyone. A claim to some sort of moral escape clause due to religion is preposterous. It is not bigotry to point out the crimes of religion.

nor do I know anybody else who does either (especially since there is legitimate health reasons for that along with some of the kosher eating habits). Seriously, your attitude does give atheists a bad name.

it doesn't hurt anyone except the animals that are ritually slaughtered, but I don't really care about the suffering of animals. Others might have a problem with it.

I generally don't have much against religion except where it causes people emotional or bodily harm. This issue is one of those areas.

nt

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I chose to have my son circumcised. Would I make the same decision today? probably not. But we wanted him to "look like his father" and all the other parents of boys that we were familiar with had made the same choice. My sister's son had very tight foreskin and was actually "done" 2x because she wasn't able to keep him clean enough...it was much harder on him the second time around at 5 months.

I didn't feel bullied at the hospital, I feel bullied in threads like this one. I cannot undo what was done. It wasn't done out of malice. Yet, there had been some extremely inflammatory posting here.

Since I view tattoo's and piercings as mutilation, I'd be disingenuous if I disagreed with your statement at face value...

:eyes:

So these idiots can fondle their obsessions without bothering the rest of us.

...You know, THAT substantial difference...

I have thought highly of your posts in the past, but I gotta ask you... What is your problem with this issue?

Let's break it down like this, okay? You want to say that it is mutilation, right? OK, let's say it is mutilation. Where does this bring us anyway? It is a tradition with many thousands of years of history and people won't stop so easily. Especially now that is has been reported to slow the spread of AIDS.

Similarly, you could show that ear piercing, nose piercing and all the other piercings are "mutilation". Also, tatoos, collagen implants, and some of the haircuts back in the 80's! But what would that bring us?

All you are doing is demonstrating the universality of human body transformation and pissing people off. So why? What is your big beef? You want your foreskin back? Is this like "Portnoy's Complaint" and you just are dissatisfied with your sex life?

I really think you should give it a rest.

But that's me...