mom who took son into hiding to save his foreskin sobs in court as she signs consent for circumcisio - Polidicks

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47817773]Then why do you make it seem to be such a nonissue? Or do you not care much?[/QUOTE] Simply put, I don't think we should circumcise people without their permission. That doesn't mean I think the people who do choose it(Because some people do choose to get it, and some have medical reasons for it) are best represented by the term "mutilated" that everyone loves to throw around. We always have topics that come up and people say "show some maturity and be sensitive to their issues" but here, rather than that, we have "How dare you be offended by the word 'mutilated'". I'm not in support of doing it to people without their permission, again, I feel I have to restate this just to make it clear for you. People who do have it though, while technically falling under the umbrella of a "mutilation", I really see no need for that in the discussion at all. No one would talk to a victim of FGM and say "You're mutilated".

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47817807]No one would talk to a victim of FGM and say "You're mutilated".[/QUOTE]No, but technically they still are. What if they're not a victim but chose it by themselves? Also, FGM is not a thing in 1st world countries, cutting dicks not only is, but it's also socially acceptable and encouraged. If you don't make it an issue, no one will see it as an issue and that's wrong.

So in order to make people not do it anymore, you are FORCED to call everyone and anyone who does it "mutilated" in order to get your point across. Yeah, I'm not on board with that and I think you can change things without doing that at all. I don't think you need to bother calling anyone and everyone with it mutilated in order to make them stop. I think there's better ways. Like dispelling the myths about its medical benefits, dispelling the religious reasons around it, and helping people realize that it's harmful to babies and can, in some cases, seriously injure the child. I think, you know, basing your arguments on facts rather than base emotions might be a better way to deal with this issue. Hell, with all issues.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47817896] FGM is not a thing in 1st world countries[/QUOTE] I thought someone in your region would know but just ask sweden. Another class of girls got fucked up by their parents only a few months ago.

[QUOTE=McSniper12;47807428]I thought it was more common in Europe, I always had the idea that Europe was more religious than the US[/QUOTE] Varies a lot from country to country. Poland is way worse than the US, but some countries are almost completely secular.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47810910]The kid is four fucking years old, how is him getting circumcised even a relevant question anymore[/QUOTE]Here's the thing-- if your parents can't decide it for you at birth, and getting it when you're older is... generally wrong, how does one go about being circumcised? Shit, I'm circumcised and happy with it-- goyim just jealous that my dick be pretty.

[QUOTE=Monkah;47818903]Here's the thing-- if your parents can't decide it for you at birth, and getting it when you're older is... generally wrong, how does one go about being circumcised? Shit, I'm circumcised and happy with it-- goyim just jealous that my dick be pretty.[/QUOTE] never? If no one wants to choose to cut bits off of their dick, then just don't cut bits off of people's dicks. This isn't that complicated. One moment no one wants to see dicks, but mention circumcision and suddenly everyone is comparing dick aesthetics as if they were experts. Everyone starts desperately shouting that they aren't the one with the ugliest penis. It's kinda funny.

I wish they'd make a more general game in the Witcher series after this one, it doesn't need a massive overarching story, I just want to check out old ruins, spelunk and fill the odd contract.

[QUOTE=Parakon;47819562]I wish they'd make a more general game in the Witcher series after this one, it doesn't need a massive overarching story, I just want to check out old ruins, spelunk and fill the odd contract.[/QUOTE] yeah they need to trim the foreskin for a smoother experience

I remember a year or two back I got into an argument in a thread much like this one over circumcision. I was for it then, now I'm kinda not. I don't think it's okay to do this to children without their consent, just like I'm not okay for piercing baby's ears without their consent. I do think it should be allowed if they're older and want it, but realistically I don't think anyone would choose to have it done unless it's medically necessary. I'm circumcised, and if given the choice to undo my circumcision I wouldn't. I kinda like being cut. I have no problems with sensitivity or anything, I just don't have to worry about gross smegma on my dick if I skip a shower for two days for some reason. Apparently women here prefer cut men according to surveys but I doubt it would even be a deal breaker in any relationship other than one with a terrible person. Still, getting back to the article, this is a stupid case. If one parent doesn't want the circumcision that should be the end of it. Holding her in jail until she approves is terrible.

Everyopen world rpg needs a dismantle system, single best addition. Useless shit isn't so useless anymore

I suppose if you ever need a few extra leather straps real bad, sure. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] Oh wow I thought I had the Witcher thread open wtf [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] That's what I get for posting while I poop

As much as this is horrible.... Apparently she hasn't heard of foreskin restoration methods. And the possibility of surgical foreskin restoration that actually gives back those nerve endings, which will probably be possible by the time that kid is 18, or at the most, 20.

Entire thread seems like a shitstorm I don't care to crawl through. This affair is ass backwards and I'm surprised a judge would have forced and accepted that consent from a mother in jeopardy. Circumcision should not be done unless it's an extreme medical emergency as it's purely cosmetic otherwise and a kid should be able to make that decision for themselves. Make circumcision a free medical procedure available to uncut males at the age of 18 (or lower, with parental consent) and wait till the kid at least hits puberty and can develop before it's done. This is something they have to decide for themselves because until the day they die, regardless of anything else, this is the body they will solely inhabit 24-7 and it should up left to their discretion. I'm uncut, and I'm fine with it. Most cut dudes I know don't care either way and are fairly happy as well. I do, however, hate meeting the odd cut dude who tells me he wishes he had a choice or that he were uncut because it seems like something very basic and yet very...core to an individual, that should be ultimately left to said individual and not their parents.

[QUOTE=Alyx Zark;47820151]Entire thread seems like a shitstorm I don't care to crawl through. This affair is ass backwards and I'm surprised a judge would have forced and accepted that consent from a mother in jeopardy. Circumcision should not be done unless it's an extreme medical emergency as it's purely cosmetic otherwise and a kid should be able to make that decision for themselves. Make circumcision a free medical procedure available to uncut males at the age of 18 (or lower, with parental consent) and wait till the kid at least hits puberty and can develop before it's done. This is something they have to decide for themselves because until the day they die, regardless of anything else, this is the body they will solely inhabit 24-7 and it should up left to their discretion. I'm uncut, and I'm fine with it. Most cut dudes I know don't care either way and are fairly happy as well. I do, however, hate meeting the odd cut dude who tells me he wishes he had a choice or that he were uncut because it seems like something very basic and yet very...core to an individual, that should be ultimately left to said individual and not their parents.[/QUOTE] Well put. If you wanna do it, do it. But do not force it upon babies or kids.

[QUOTE=mobrockers;47815472]I don't get why people seem to think that by calling circumcision mutilation, we're somehow comparing it to FGM. You're the ones doing that, not us. Just because they're both mutilation does not make them equal in severity, but not being equal in severity also does not make one not mutilation. It is by definition mutilation, there's no way around that no matter how hard you try, and saying it's not mutilation because it's not as bad as FGM is ridiculously stupid. I'm sorry you can't accept that you have a mutilated dick, I'm sorry you force these negatives on the word, I'm sorry you feel like we're insulting you when we say that. But get over yourselves, we're talking about an unnecessary, forced procedure, on babies.[/QUOTE] verb gerund or present participle: mutilating inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on. Surgery isn't violent and I personally think that cut dicks are more aesthetically pleasing, not that there's much difference erect anyway. There isn't any lost functionality. It's not by strictly by definition mutilation. If you feel it's disfiguring or violent, then feel free to call it mutilation, but if you feel it is disfiguring, which is by definition to spoil the attractiveness of, that's really more an opinion. Second, it's bullshit when you say "sorry you force these negatives on that word" nobody is forcing negatives on the word, it's a negative word and it sounds berating. You don't call a transsexual a shemale to her face, and justify it by saying not to force negatives on the word. Supporting this is the fact that whenever I hear the term mutilation brought up in regards to male circumcision, it's in a "cut vs uncut" debate by people trying to convince other people on the internet they have better dicks. The most important bit is that it's a useless procedure with no beneficial effects except in rare cases performed for purely religious purposes. By principle, regardless of what the procedure does or it's subjective or objective severity, it should not be performed on anybody that cannot consent.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;47816612]As far as I'm concerned circumcision is an unnecessary operation that shouldn't be carried out on individuals who can't even voice consent (or lack thereof) regarding it.[/QUOTE] The case of Phimosis is when the foreskin cannot retract, the chances of it being retractable rise exponentially with age until 18 where almost all have retractable foreskin. If 50% of ten year olds are pissing all over themselves because of it, then circumcision is a option but one later on in life.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;47806934]It's not even a tradition for any good reason. The only reason circumcision is so widely practised in the US today is because way back around the late 1800s John Harvey Kellogg encouraged people to do it so their kids wouldn't jack off (Not like that's stopped anyone).[/QUOTE] I don't know if it is to stop people from masturbating, but it sure as hell takes away a lot of sensitivity and feeling in your dick. Makes sex very much less enjoyable.

Circumcision killed my mother and raped my children.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47820980]No it doesn't Source: me and every other cut person in this thread. Sensitivity is relative, this is a terrible point for or against circumcision.[/QUOTE] i honestly know nothing about dick science but im pretty sure its a fact that there are nerve endings in your dick that are taken away wouldn't that make it realistically less pleasurable

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47820980]No it doesn't Source: me and every other cut person in this thread. Sensitivity is relative, this is a terrible point for or against circumcision.[/QUOTE] How would you even know? People who have their foreskin, but it doesn't cover the whole tip, have a huge loss in sensitivity where it is uncovered, and it is normal where the foreskin always covers it.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47821157]How would you know how my penis feels? I'm not saying I know for a fact, but relative feeling makes sense to me given all the sensations I've experienced in various degrees.[/QUOTE] I'm saying how would someone who doesn't have their foreskin even know. And like I said, when you have half of it covered, the other half uncovered, the uncovered side has a huge loss of feeling, while the other side remains intact. There is your proof.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47821212]I explained this perfectly a few months ago, I forgot how I worded it.. People with foreskin and without have the same relative sexual pleasure (relative to their own personal pleasure!) So a cut and uncut can both reach the highpoint of pleasure, because it is based on what they can personally feel. If a cut person suddenly had uncut, it'd feel better for a while but then it'd go back to "normal" (normal being what is relative to that person) If an uncut went to cut, it'd feel worse but then go back to normal, relative to that person. Like if you could rate sensitivity, an uncut person has a 10 and cut a 5. Well to a cut person, that 5 feels like a 10 because they havent experienced anything over 5. Since they're used to the lower numbers, it feels the same because it is relative. Idk how shit am I explaining this? [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] The relative thing isn't JUST based on the penis, I think it applies to ALL physical feelings.[/QUOTE] Ok but you still lose sensitivity when your foreskin is not covering the tip of your penis, this does not change.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47821276]Doesn't matter, it is relative! Cut and uncut can't tell the difference unless you have the surgery later on, even then it may go back to normal? Not sure about that. Until we have the technology and units of measurement to measure penis sensitivity, we can't say anything for sure. But I am placing my money on relativity.[/QUOTE] But the person who has half of their penis tip covered by foreskin can lightly run their finger down it, and not feel a thing until they touch the part that is normally covered. There is your loss of sensitivity.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47821294]I'm confused, are you talking about an uncut person? Because that'd make sense with my theory of penis relativity, he's uncut, so of course it'd feel bad for him.[/QUOTE] Yes, an uncut person who has a foreskin that doesn't cover the whole tip. The uncovered part has a huge loss of feeling while the covered part has no loss of feeling. So if you are circumcised then the whole tip would have loss of feeling.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47821331]Well he'a used to the intense feeling of the covered part, so it feels nothing by relative comparison.[/QUOTE] Are all your other feelings also subdued relatively to your penis? Say, in comparison to me, your arms are completely numb at all times? If they aren't, I guess there is a very definite regression in the sensitivity of your penis, and you're getting accordingly less pleasure. Also congrats on having to use lube when masturbating.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47822615]Are all your other feelings also subdued relatively to your penis? Say, in comparison to me, your arms are completely numb at all times? If they aren't, I guess there is a very definite regression in the sensitivity of your penis, and you're getting accordingly less pleasure. [B]Also congrats on having to use lube when masturbating[/B].[/QUOTE] literally never had to do this.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47822615]Are all your other feelings also subdued relatively to your penis? Say, in comparison to me, your arms are completely numb at all times? If they aren't, I guess there is a very definite regression in the sensitivity of your penis, and you're getting accordingly less pleasure. Also congrats on having to use lube when masturbating.[/QUOTE] Alright, so we're going in a full circle again?

Why the fuck do you guys have to turn this into "my cock is better than ur cock- no MY cock is better than ur cock!"? The bottom line is that performing unnecessary, cosmetic surgery on children too young to consent is immoral. Thats it. you don't have to go into benefits or drawbacks, You don't have to go into opinions or preferences. No consent- No cosmetic surgery. The only reason you guys are so okay with the idea with slicing bits off of newborn kids is because its a cultural norm where you are from. if we randomly sliced the nipples off of every newborn baby boy in my country, it wouldn't matter how many people said "I got nipped as a kid and i feel fine!" or " whats the big deal!? boys don't even need nipples!, now he wont grow unsightly nipple hair! i prefer nipped men!" it would still seem messed up. Im not saying anyone with a circumcised penis should feel incomplete and mutilated, im actually glad the choice your parents made on your behalf hasn't had a huge negative impact on your life, because that would be terrible. But it doesn't change the fact that they should not have been able to make that kind of decision for another person too young to consent.

For every guy who likes his dick, congrats. I'm an american woman. I have no sexual experience with uncut men, but my husband and I chose NOT to cut our son. He is now a teenager and he says his friends are about 50/50 between cut and uncut. There was a huge upsurge against circumcision, at least amongst intelligensia, in the late 80's and 90's. Penile cancer and STD reality check: if you are a slovenly person who does not bathe, your private parts are going to stink whether or not you are circumcised, and whether or not you are male! Haven't you ever heard of "twat rot?" Teach your kid how to bathe properly and not to have unprotected sex with uncommitted partners, and the risk of penile cancer and STD's goes down dramatically. Derp. Personally, I never once thought about circumcision until my nephew was born and my mother threw a hissy fit against him being cut. It turns out that my dad, who was born in the deep south in 1916, had an elective circumcision as an adult. He felt stigmatized by not being cut, like being uncircumcised proclaimed his childhood poverty. There was a huge "ick" factor in questioning him or my mom about the outcome, but from what my mom said, I gather that after the circumcision he was extremely sensitive and had no staying power, leaving my mom sexually unsatisfied. Once the hood was gone, the head of his penis was like a raw nerve ending. My dad never talked about it to us and my mom was not specific in the details of what happened to him, but she was adamently opposed to circumcision! There was no question that when my son was born, he would remain as nature made him. Hearing this, my mother-in-law had her own hissy fit. She thought it was terrible and traumatizing for a son to look different from his father. So, for the non-americans who wonder why we circumcise over here, there's another reason for ya - so the son will look like his dad -as if a little boy's penis looks anything like his dad's dick! As for the relative sensitivity argument: sure, if you had the hood removed as a baby or small child, your reality is that "this is how it has always felt" and that is normal for you and as long as your dick works, that is the important part. You don't miss what you never had. But [U]what if[/U] it could be even better? That was my thought when I looked at my baby son. You see, I had breast reduction surgery a few years before his birth, and after the surgery my breasts only feel about 1/3 as sensitive as before the surgery. I still have feeling. My nipples still feel directly tied to my clit, but just not as vibrantly. I had the surgery 22 years ago. The sensitivity has never come back. And breasts are only a secondary sexual characteristic! I could not contemplate doing that to him, and to a much more important area. Ben Franklin famously said that beer was proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. I disagree. I think orgasms prove that. Or at least help along that biological imperitive to procreate! I want my child to be able to experience that pleasure as vibrantly as possible. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("I am not sure what compels you to type this up on your phone but perhaps that explains why you are a year late in responding to this thread" - Starpluck))[/highlight]