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

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47809333]It got popularized as an anti-fapping measure.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of that long list of "fapping consequences". [QUOTE=Antlerp;47809661]If you wondered why the fuck many Americans always masturbate with lube, it's because they lack a foreskin[/QUOTE] Even I didn't know that.

[QUOTE=Antlerp;47809661]Man the foreskin has all the nerve endings so you can actually feel something. If you wondered why the fuck many Americans always masturbate with lube, it's because they lack a foreskin[/QUOTE] I'm circumcised. I don't need lube.

[QUOTE=Parakon;47808318]Should circumcision be the soul decision of the penis holder except under medical evaluation? [I]Yes[/I]. Are circumcised individuals horribly mutilated frankenstein beasts because they're circumsized? [I]No[/I]. Set down the torches and pitch forks folks. They're just like everyone else. If your dick hasn't been circumcised it's OK. It's still special. But so is the circumcised bloke's, so have some respect for the people you're supposedly trying to help.[/QUOTE] Quoting since the crusaders are still frothing at the mouth.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47809333]It got popularized as an anti-fapping measure.[/QUOTE] hasn't stopped me.

Snip

Am I the only one reading the article that understands she's in trouble with the law because she signed a [i]legally binding agreement[/i] with the father of her child in court, then reneged on that contract, took illegal custody of the child (essentially kidnapping) and [i]ran from the law[/i]. I'm not defending the whole 'forcing to boy to get a circumcision' thing. I honestly find the argument between cut and uncut retarded. I'm saying she broke the fucking law. She did not have custody of the child, she reneged on a legally binding agreement that she signed in court, kidnapped the child, and ran from law enforcement. You don't get to do that.

Honestly wish I did not get circumcised. Now I have problems with sensitivity and getting off during sex.

Ah the famous Facepunch Circumcision debate fire up again! [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] Oops gotta contribute, as a non circumcised man i say Chop It!

[QUOTE=Fayez;47809510]You're comparing the removal of a useless piece of skin to this: How is it mutilation if many people say that it looks better?[/QUOTE] Change the subject to forced sterilization of all non-white races at birth because we only want white babies, because "many people say that it looks better" to have white skin. After all they won't remember the procedure when they're older right?

These discussions run the same gambit every time verbatim. By and large most people are not for circumcising their child without good reason. But, people who have it and didn't ask for it aren't being told "it's okay". No, they're being told "you're mutilated in a private, sensitive area" like its a point that matters. If these discussions are ever to be worth having, referring to males with it as "mutilated" is fucked up. I know for a fact you wouldn't tell a FGM sufferer to her face that she's mutilated. But here, with men's junk? Go ahead, tell them their mutilated, right? I don't get self conscious about my junk, but if I did, you people wouldn't help.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47810343]These discussions run the same gambit every time verbatim. By and large most people are not for circumcising their child without good reason. But, people who have it and didn't ask for it aren't being told "it's okay". No, they're being told "you're mutilated in a private, sensitive area" like its a point that matters. If these discussions are ever to be worth having, referring to males with it as "mutilated" is fucked up. I know for a fact you wouldn't tell a FGM sufferer to her face that she's mutilated. But here, with men's junk? Go ahead, tell them their mutilated, right? I don't get self conscious about my junk, but if I did, you people wouldn't help.[/QUOTE] I don't go around calling circumcised people mutilated to their face, however, when talking about it in a medical context, it is absolutely mutilation. Of course the majority of circumcised people will go ahead to lead a happy, relatively unhindered life, however, the argument is that parents should not have the ability to make that decision for their child who is incapable of giving consent.

I would hate to be unable to have a say. What a rip-off on the kids end.

[QUOTE=Noss;47810374]I don't go around calling circumcised people mutilated to their face, however, when talking about it in a medical context, it is absolutely mutilation. Of course the majority of circumcised people will go ahead to lead a happy, relatively unhindered life, however, the argument is that parents should not have the ability to make that decision for their child who is incapable of giving consent.[/QUOTE] And i'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the way we talk about this is fucked up. Am I "mutilated" for having an earing? For my lip ring? My nose ring? My tattoos? What else do I have that is a mutilation? If this was about FGM, and we had people who had suffered through FGM, would ANYONE here call them "Mutilated" straight up as you, and others have done here to people with the male version of it? No. Asking for some respect on the issue is hardly asking for anything, yet every thread it comes up in, people take offense to the very concept that they shouldn't be calling it mutilation when at least discussing it with the "victims" of it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47810404]And i'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the way we talk about this is fucked up. Am I "mutilated" for having an earing? For my lip ring? My nose ring? My tattoos? What else do I have that is a mutilation? If this was about FGM, and we had people who had suffered through FGM, would ANYONE here call them "Mutilated" straight up as you, and others have done here to people with the male version of it? No. Asking for some respect on the issue is hardly asking for anything, yet every thread it comes up in, people take offense to the very concept that they shouldn't be calling it mutilation when at least discussing it with the "victims" of it.[/QUOTE] I'd argue that it is more important that we don't downplay circumcision. Nobody here is likely to be deeply offended by circumcision being referred to as 'mutilation'. I am not referring to the people as 'mutilated', I am referring to the act of circumcision as mutilation, much as the act of FGM is literally referred to as 'Female Genital Mutilation'. The vast majority of circumcised people here do not see themselves as victims, and are instead sticking up for the procedure, because they've experienced it and haven't experienced any negatives from it.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47810343]These discussions run the same gambit every time verbatim. By and large most people are not for circumcising their child without good reason. But, people who have it and didn't ask for it aren't being told "it's okay". No, they're being told "you're mutilated in a private, sensitive area" like its a point that matters. If these discussions are ever to be worth having, referring to males with it as "mutilated" is fucked up. [b]I know for a fact you wouldn't tell a FGM sufferer to her face that she's mutilated.[/b] But here, with men's junk? Go ahead, tell them their mutilated, right? I don't get self conscious about my junk, but if I did, you people wouldn't help.[/QUOTE] I agree with your point, but I disagree with this, solely because FGM stands for Female Genital Mutilation. So, yeah, if you told someone she was a victim of FGM, you'd be telling her that her female genitals were mutilated. However, I completely agree with the rest of what you are saying. I think saying that male circumcision is mutilation is over-dramatizing it. Especially when considering the immediate negative effects of complete FGM (pain while menstruating/urinating, risk of infection, etc) when compared to the negative effects of male circumcision (reduced sensitivity in the head) I think that the two are incongruous. I am cut, and I would rather have my foreskin. I also believe that my choice to want a foreskin is my choice, not anyone else's, which is why I am going to let my child decide for himself, if he is a boy.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47810451]I'm offended by it, not that you asked or care at all.[/QUOTE] And why exactly are you offended at me calling circumcision mutilation by the very definition of the word? [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47810451]I'm offended by it, not that you asked or care at all. I am not a victim, I love my penis. Doesn't mean I want to be called names?[/QUOTE] I am not calling you names. I am calling the act of circumcision mutilation. The only reason you are offended is because you are deriving negative connotations from the word whilst I am using it purely in a medical context.

[QUOTE=Noss;47810434]I'd argue that it is more important that we don't downplay circumcision. Nobody here is likely to be deeply offended by circumcision being referred to as 'mutilation'. I am not referring to the people as 'mutilated', I am referring to the act of circumcision as mutilation, much as the act of FGM is literally referred to as 'Female Genital Mutilation'. The vast majority of circumcised people here do not see themselves as victims, and are instead sticking up for the procedure, because they've experienced it and haven't experienced any negatives from it.[/QUOTE] "This is an act of mutilation that you had performed to you" is equivalent of saying "You're mutilated", no? Ones just more to the point. And what do you expect? I'm regularly told(Every fucking time this thread comes up) how effective my penis is and what it suffers from. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, most people, don't like to have other people speak for them about things like this by strangers who don't have a clue.

[QUOTE=Noss;47810463]And why exactly are you offended at me calling circumcision mutilation by the very definition of the word?[/QUOTE] Mutilation implies a severe negative physical repercussion. Having a hand lopped off by a machete is mutilation. FGM is mutilation. Having a non-essential organ removed in an operation that does not impede any basic bodily functions is not mutilation, it's amputation. I'd like to state, once again, I am against male circumcision, but we should argue against it for the right reasons - not because it's mutilation (which I don't think it fully qualifies as), but because it's a non-consensual operation performed many times for no good reason.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47810481]"This is an act of mutilation that you had performed to you" is equivalent of saying "You're mutilated", no? Ones just more to the point. And what do you expect? I'm regularly told(Every fucking time this thread comes up) how effective my penis is and what it suffers from. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, most people, don't like to have other people speak for them about things like this by strangers who don't have a clue.[/QUOTE] You may be very happy with your circumcised penis. My argument is not saying that you should be ashamed of it or should be treated differently. I am saying that the parents or guardians of a child should not be allowed to make that decision to remove part of their child's body without the express consent of that person.

[QUOTE=J$ Psychotic;47810452]I agree with your point, but I disagree with this, solely because FGM stands for Female Genital Mutilation. So, yeah, if you told someone she was a victim of FGM, you'd be telling her that her female genitals were mutilated. However, I completely agree with the rest of what you are saying. I think saying that male circumcision is mutilation is over-dramatizing it. Especially when considering the immediate negative effects of complete FGM (pain while menstruating/urinating, risk of infection, etc) when compared to the negative effects of male circumcision (reduced sensitivity in the head) I think that the two are incongruous. I am cut, and I would rather have my foreskin. I also believe that my choice to want a foreskin is my choice, not anyone else's, which is why I am going to let my child decide for himself, if he is a boy.[/QUOTE] I know that's what it stands for, but I use that term because there isn't another that accurately sums up what we're talking about here and yes, mutilation is in the word, but would you call them "Mutilated" without the term FGM behind it? You wouldn't be cruel to the victim of FGM by calling her that, but it's seemingly not an issue on this side of the fence. [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;47810495]You may be very happy with your circumcised penis. My argument is not saying that you should be ashamed of it or should be treated differently. I am saying that the parents or guardians of a child should not be allowed to make that decision to remove part of their child's body without the express consent of that person.[/QUOTE] See? Was it so hard to refer to my dick as "Circumcised" rather than "Mutilated"? Mine was done for medical reasons, and I know people who when they were legally adults, chose to have it done.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47810501]I know that's what it stands for, but I use that term because there isn't another that accurately sums up what we're talking about here and yes, mutilation is in the word, but would you call them "Mutilated" without the term FGM behind it? You wouldn't be cruel to the victim of FGM by calling her that, but it's seemingly not an issue on this side of the fence. [editline]26th May 2015[/editline] See? Was it so hard to refer to my dick as "Circumcised" rather than "Mutilated"? Mine was done for medical reasons, and I know people who when they were legally adults, chose to have it done.[/QUOTE] The reason FGM is referred to as such is because people do not want to downplay the severity of the procedure by referring to it as 'circumcision'. I believe that whilst obviously not as harmful as FGM, the severity of male circumcision should also not be downplayed.

[QUOTE=Noss;47809570] How is that a 'slippery slope' argument? You're advocating removing "useless" pieces of skin for cosmetic reasons.[/QUOTE] I haven't advocated shit, stop putting words in my mouth. All I've been arguing is that male circumcision is not mutilation.

It doesn't matter whether you've been circumcised or not, it can't be changed anyways (unless you actually want to cut your foreskin off, implying you haven't been circumcised). It doesn't make you less of a human being and the difference is small. There are reasons behind why people go through with it. Considering it as mutilation is like saying pulling someone's wisdom teeth out is also mutilation.

[QUOTE=Noss;47810532]The reason FGM is referred to as such is because people do not want to downplay the severity of the procedure by referring to it as 'circumcision'. I believe that whilst obviously not as harmful as FGM, the severity of male circumcision should also not be downplayed.[/QUOTE] There is a huge difference in severity between the two you're ignoring by comparing them as if they were the same. Can you tell me, in straight forward terms, how FGM and circumcision are more similar than they are different? It seems to me, that people who go through FGM have it far worse than all but the most botched of circumcisions. They are not equivalent, so yes, people are justifiably mad at you calling their foreskin less penises as mutilated as FGM, which leaves women much worse off. Don't compare them. They aren't the fucking same.

[QUOTE=Noss;47810532]The reason FGM is referred to as such is because people do not want to downplay the severity of the procedure by referring to it as 'circumcision'. I believe that whilst obviously not as harmful as FGM, the severity of male circumcision should also not be downplayed.[/QUOTE] You're so passionate about dick cutting.

[QUOTE=Noss;47809834]That is completely circumventing the argument. It's basically saying "Some people are circumcised and that is okay, some people are not circumcised and that is okay." But the fact that parents are allowed to circumcise in the first place is [B]not[/B] okay unless it is done so for an immediate medical reason, such as phimosis. Why do some people find it so ridiculous to believe that a person should give consent before having a fucking body part removed? It is a permanent procedure that will follow that person for life. Will most people be fine with that? Yes. That is because it has already happened and everybody around them has had the same procedure. Does that make it okay to do? No. The procedure is unneeded, removes the freedom of choice that a person should have over their own body, and has been responsible for numerous deaths and injuries. We should not be performing procedures such as this in the name of tradition.[/QUOTE] no it isn't, you should actually read the post. would have saved you the effort of typing up what I already had.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47809890]Am I the only one reading the article that understands she's in trouble with the law because she signed a [i]legally binding agreement[/i] with the father of her child in court, then reneged on that contract, took illegal custody of the child (essentially kidnapping) and [i]ran from the law[/i]. I'm not defending the whole 'forcing to boy to get a circumcision' thing. I honestly find the argument between cut and uncut retarded. I'm saying she broke the fucking law. She did not have custody of the child, she reneged on a legally binding agreement that she signed in court, kidnapped the child, and ran from law enforcement. You don't get to do that.[/QUOTE] Nothing, not even the article, can stop the Facepunch anti-circumcision circlejerk.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47810663]You're so passionate about dick cutting.[/QUOTE] You're shaming him because he cares about useless baby cutting? You sound like these people who argue by shaming.

[QUOTE=El_Jameo;47807007]Having this kind of operation done to a child as young as 4 is a pretty horrifying experience to go though. I mean, at least if you're a baby/infant you won't remember it but past that it's defo something you won't forget. I had one last week today and it's not a good time, but at least I had a reason for it. That boy will be in tears for weeks.[/QUOTE] I had it done due to an infection when I was 5 years old and the only thing I remember is the IV stuck on my wrist, it really isn't as torturous as a shitton are making it out to be. Ofc, 12 years later I loathe the result of this. My dick skin rips out easily so I have to fap gently. Fuck.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47810787]You're shaming him because he cares about useless baby cutting? You sound like these people who argue by shaming.[/QUOTE] That's right, I'm all for useless baby curtting. I'll be extra sure to have every single one of my male children circumcised to keep the tradition going.