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

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47813553]I don't think parents should have the right to force their children through any cosmetic surgery they want.[/QUOTE] I don't think parents can force [i]any[/i] cosmetic surgery. I'm damn sure if I tried to take a kid into a plastic surgeon's office and said I wanted him to have a George Clooney chin they'd tell me to piss off. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Melkor;47813559]A medical procedure that not only does nothing for your kids health, but carries medical risks as well, and leaves them 4 to 5 times more likely to have erectile dysfunction as a direct result when they get older.[/QUOTE] [Citation Needed]

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813562] [Citation Needed][/QUOTE] [citation provided] [url]http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction[/url]

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47813531]snoberry that's not your choice to circumcise a child and eurocracy you're being really silly imo it's not genital mutilation, I think of it as getting those dumb holes in your ears or getting breast reduction surgery there's nothing wrong with being circumcised. the only thing that's wrong about it is that the parents are choosing for them[/QUOTE] Your top sentence is p.much my point all along Aside from semantics and the debate of using genital mutilation to describe circumcision, which isn't even a definite even now that I can check on

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47813561]I'm saying it shouldn't be your choice. It will probably get banned in the next 5 years so I can hold my breath as long as I want :)[/QUOTE] It currently is my choice regardless of what you think, and I seriously doubt it will be banned any time in the near future. The government has much better things to worry about than excess dick skin. Not to mention circumcision is a fairly profitable part of the healthcare industry and as we've learned from many things in America, the healthcare industry doesn't tend to lie down and let the government take away avenues of revenue. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Melkor;47813569][citation provided] [url]http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction[/url][/QUOTE] Seriously? Your 'credible source' is an anti-cutter website?

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813575] Seriously? Your 'credible source' is an anti-cutter website?[/QUOTE] Which has multiple links in the article backing up its claim.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813575]It currently is my choice regardless of what you think, and I seriously doubt it will be banned any time in the near future. The government has much better things to worry about than excess dick skin. Not to mention circumcision is a fairly profitable part of the healthcare industry and as we've learned from many things in America, the healthcare industry doesn't tend to lie down and let the government take away avenues of revenue. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] Seriously? Your 'credible source' is an anti-cutter website?[/QUOTE] actually no the sources are linked in the anti cutter website, which are actual reports so stop horseshitting and parents with that kind of mentality are just scary, you can't mold your kids into you because you like it

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813562]I don't think parents can force [i]any[/i] cosmetic surgery. I'm damn sure if I tried to take a kid into a plastic surgeon's office and said I wanted him to have a George Clooney chin they'd tell me to piss off.[/QUOTE] Its quite the problem in asian countries and in the US up to 20% of cosmetic surgery seems to be children. Also yeah, its pretty much cosmetic surgery. You yourself previously stated that you would have it done solely for cosmetic reasons.

[QUOTE=Melkor;47813589]Which has multiple links in the article backing up its claim.[/QUOTE] Yes. Fantastic sources. One website that doesn't work anymore and a bunch of articles from the same website that are all outdated studies that used [i]extremely small[/i] focus groups to test their theories. All but one of the studies had focus groups LESS than 100 people, with the only outlier having less than 500. That's laughable. That's not even a focus group that's a focus gathering. It's a focus picnic. Find me focus groups with similar results in the thousands or tens of thousands and I'll believe it. Until then it's useless propaganda. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47813606]Why do people keep trying to make comparisons to the penis? Nothing else on the body is like the penis. You need all your fingers, especially if you want to continue typing rude posts like a jerk.[/QUOTE] I only type with four fingers and sometimes my thumbs for the spacebar. Middle and index finger on both hands.

It's very entertaining watching grown men argue the semantics about cutting dicks and be so passionate about it. You'd think that circumcision is the civil rights revolution of 2015 the way you all go on about it.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813609]Yes. Fantastic sources. One website that doesn't work anymore and a bunch of articles from the same website that are all outdated studies that used [i]extremely small[/i] focus groups to test their theories. All but one of the studies had focus groups LESS than 100 people, with the only outlier having less than 500. That's laughable. That's not even a focus group that's a focus gathering. It's a focus picnic. Find me focus groups with similar results in the thousands or tens of thousands and I'll believe it. Until then it's useless propaganda.[/QUOTE] Here's a result, less dramatic, but with a sample size n of 5552 showing that men who are circumcised have an increased difficulties with orgasm. [url]http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.full[/url] Admittedly, in hindsight the results I posted before were probably exaggerated, However there is still a statistically significant increase for erectile dysfunction in circumcised men, so this coupled with the risk involved in performing the operation (there's always some risk involved when performing a medical procedure) makes circumcision irresponsible if the reasons for doing so are purely cosmetic.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47806677]Its fine to force this pointless cosmetic surgery on an infant but only if you have the mothers consent... never understood this. But you really won't. Thats the problem with mainstream feminism.[/QUOTE] glad to see you are still at it ranger never change keep fighting the good fight man

Are people really justifying genital mutilation by arguing about it's penile aesthetics, sexual sensitivity, and difficulty of cleaning? This is a court of law in America ordering that doctors preform a ritual and unnecessary bodily mutilation to an infant, in this case against both the child AND one of the guardian's wills! Fuck the paper she signed, and fuck any legal system on Earth that allows a parent to sign away the bodily sanctity of their child. Define to me one way in which this differs at all from the already appropriately banned and socially shunned practice of female genital mutilation and really read the sentence you typed seriously before you try to tell me it's different because "foreskins are icky, and my parents mutilated my dick so it's ok." If a mother absconded with her little girl in Sudan because the father wanted her cunt sliced apart with a knife you people belittling it in this thread would probably be in as much an uproar as anyone else, and if you we're at all for it you would be rightly called a scoundrel and a sick fuck. How is the case occurring in America to a young boy at all different from the above?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47814150]Soo many ways, it is crazy how different. Read the thread, already discussed.[/QUOTE] I'm saying those points are stupid and invalid.

I'm not in support of it, but you're wrong to say that FGM and circumcision are equal.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47814157]I'm not in support of it, but you're wrong to say that FGM and circumcision are equal.[/QUOTE] Give a single justification to this sentence.

I'd like to see this discussion without Americans, imagine how sane it would be.

FGM is a horrendous procedure designed specifically to destroy the chance of pleasure. Circumcision is not, and outside of seriously botched operations doesn't render pleasure out of the realm of possibility, and doesn't render the penis incapable of orgasm. Can you tell me how it's more similar than disparate? Or are you just going to rely on poorly justified moral outrage at someone who's not even saying it's something we should continue?

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814088]Are people really justifying genital mutilation by arguing about it's penile aesthetics, sexual sensitivity, and difficulty of cleaning? Define to me one way in which this differs at all from the already appropriately banned and socially shunned practice of female genital mutilation and really read the sentence you typed seriously before you try to tell me it's different because "foreskins are icky, and my parents mutilated my dick so it's ok." [/QUOTE] Are you fucking kidding me? Are you a troll? You are seriously asking how circumcision is different from female genital mutilation? Okay, fine. [B]Female Genital Mutilation:[/B] 1. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina). 2. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris. [I][U][B]No health benefits, only harm.[/B][/U][/I] [B]Male Circumcision:[/B] 1. Removal of the foreskin. [U][I][B]The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having no benefit and significant risks to having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks. [/B][/I][/U] To even to begin to compare the two is a spit in the face of all victims of FGM. I know victims of FGM, and all of them tell me how painful it feels just to go to the bathroom, must less have sex. I'm not arguing shit about whether it's good or not, or if parents should be allowed to do it. I'm saying that male circumcision is not mutilation, and that it's not equivocal to FGM.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47813705]It's very entertaining watching grown men argue the semantics about cutting dicks and be so passionate about it. You'd think that circumcision is the civil rights revolution of 2015 the way you all go on about it.[/QUOTE] Almost like mutilating babies distresses one's faith in human decency or something, eh? [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fayez;47814198]Are you fucking kidding me? Are you a troll? You are seriously asking how circumcision is different from female genital mutilation? Okay, fine. Female Genital Mutilation: 1. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina). 2. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris. [B]No health benefits, only harm.[/B] Male Circumcision: 1. Removal of the foreskin. To even to begin to compare the two is a spit in the face of all victims of FGM. I'm not arguing shit about if it's good or not, or if parents should be allowed to do it. I'm saying that they are just not equivocal, and that it's not mutilation. I know victims of FGM, and all of them tell me how painful it feels just to go to the bathroom, must less have sex.[/QUOTE] One does more physical damage than the other in terms of pain or flesh removed sure. That isn't a sufficient reason to consider one acceptable and other other not. They are both at core the same action. Is doing a lesser injury to someone for bad reasons not to be considered at all similar or the same to a greater injury done for the same bad reasons? Degrees of seriousness do not make the lesser action insignificant. I also don't appreciate being insinuated to have 'spit in the face' of victims of FGM when I have said nothing but another action is of the same intent and wrongness, much less done nothing to belittle what is an equally appalling act.

That's the motive, not the action. The act is still identical, and if it serves no meaningful or valid purpose and defies consent, why differentiate between the severity other than a misguided desire to place one on a higher pedestal of disdain or to belittle the seriousness of the other? Both are the act of taking a blade to a child's genitals for either misguided medical, or ritual/religious reasons, and both are justifiably undesirable in a civil society.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814162]Give a single justification to this sentence.[/QUOTE] Fgm includes either or both of the following: Sowing shut the vaginal canal. Removal of the clitoris. (Excision) One prevents sex, the other prevents nearly all sexual pleasure. People with circumcisions, despite being cut up, lead normal daily lives, victims of fgm need a special operation to open the vagina again and before then cannot have sex. Wait are you still on the argument that both are equal? I have to let you know you're not correct at all and this is coming from someone who thinks both operations are bad. One is just infinitely worse.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814200] One does more physical damage than the other in terms of pain or flesh removed sure. That isn't a sufficient reason to consider one acceptable and other other not. They are both at core the same action. Is doing a lesser injury to someone for bad reasons not to be considered at all similar or the same to a greater injury done for the same bad reasons? [/QUOTE] Like I said, I'm not arguing about whether male circumcision is right or not. [QUOTE] Degrees of seriousness do not make the lesser action insignificant. I also don't appreciate being insinuated to have 'spit in the face' of victims of FGM when I have said nothing but another action is of the same intent and wrongness, much less done nothing to belittle what is an equally appalling act.[/QUOTE] But you're wrong, they are done for different reasons, and if you did the slightest bit of research that involved looking at the Wikipedia page you'll see: [QUOTE]The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.[/QUOTE] While circumcision: [QUOTE]The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on neonates and children for religious and cultural reasons,[1] but in other cases may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814257]That's the motive, not the action. The act is still identical, and if it serves no meaningful or valid purpose and defies consent, why differentiate between the severity other than a misguided desire to place one on a higher pedestal of disdain or to belittle the seriousness of the other? Both are the act of taking a blade to a child's genitals for either misguided medical, or ritual/religious reasons, and both are justifiably undesirable in a civil society.[/QUOTE] Victims of FGM live painful lives day by day, and need surgery in order to correct it. "Victims" of circumcision will never experience constant pain, and will never need corrective surgery on their genitals.

[QUOTE=01271;47814262]Fgm includes either or both of the following: Sowing shut the vaginal canal. Removal of the clitoris. (Excision) One prevents sex, the other prevents nearly all sexual pleasure. People with circumcisions, despite being cut up, lead normal daily lives, victims of fgm need a special operation to open the vagina again and before then cannot have sex.[/QUOTE] You just described mutilation as "being cut up", and ascribed it to normalcy. This is the exact same logic that a supporter of FGM would say; minimizing the severity and insinuating the results are socially acceptable. I'm saying, and the others who castigate circumcision are saying that is not the case. I'm not entirely sure what you lads are arguing for here. Are you trying to describe FGM as worse because you don't have a problem with circumcision, because you think it deserves attention at circumcision debates loss? If the reason is, 'you comparing them offends me', then stop feeling like the victim when we're talking about a child being forcibly mutilated. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fayez;47814277] The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and aesthetics The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on neonates and children for religious and cultural reasons [/QUOTE] Cultural attempts to control purity, modesty, aesthetics, for social/religious reasons. This is literally the same thing other than the gender inequality part- which is somewhat shot in the foot when it mentions that women are often the practitioners of it within their communities. It's not wrong because it is unequal, it's wrong because it's deforming children against their will. And before you accuse me of a lack of research I have taken several classes which have discussed the issue within historical contexts, and the numerous examples of the practice were as relatable to circumcision then as to now; so don't throw wikipedia at me like I'm to be awed at your knowledge and my ignorance.

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814285]You just described mutilation as "being cut up", and ascribed it to normalcy. This is the exact same logic that a supporter of FGM would say; minimizing the severity and insinuating the results are socially acceptable. I'm saying, and the others who castigate circumcision are saying that is not the case. I'm not entirely sure what you lads are arguing for here. Are you trying to describe FGM as worse because you don't have a problem with circumcision, because you think it deserves attention at circumcision debates loss? If the reason is, 'you comparing them offends me', then stop feeling like the victim when we're talking about a child being forcibly mutilated. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] Cultural attempts to control purity, modesty, aesthetics, for social/religious reasons. This is literally the same thing other than the gender inequality part- which is somewhat shot in the foot when it mentions that women are often the practitioners of it within their communities. It's not wrong because it is unequal, it's wrong because it's deforming children against their will. And before you accuse me of a lack of research I have taken several classes which have discussed the issue within historical contexts, and the numerous examples of the practice were as relatable to circumcision then as to now; so don't throw wikipedia at me like I'm to be awed at your knowledge and my ignorance.[/QUOTE] The entire purpose as to why FGM was created was to control women, and their sexuality, and is inherently sexist. Circumcision was created to prevent infections back in the old days. [QUOTE]It's not wrong because it is unequal, it's wrong because it's deforming children against their will.[/QUOTE] You keep bringing this up when I'm not trying to fucking argue that. I've said many times that all I'm arguing is that FGM and male circumcision are not equivocal. Despite their roots in tradition and religion. Since they both involve surgeries on the genital area, that somehow makes them similar?

I've been "fgm is worse than circumcision and neither are acceptable" from the start while fayez has been (from what I read) "fgm is worse than circumcision and nobody should care about circumcision don't even ise the same words to describe both of them" and then you come along with "circumcision is on the same level as fgm and both are bad". Are we all misreading each other or are we all gonna mutilate each other again in next week's Swedish fgm thread.

[QUOTE=01271;47814351]I've been "fgm is worse than circumcision and neither are acceptable" from the start while fayez has been (from what I read) "fgm is worse than circumcision and nobody should care about circumcision don't even ise the same words to describe both of them" and then you come along with "circumcision is on the same level as fgm and both are bad". Are we all misreading each other or are we all gonna mutilate each other again in next week's Swedish fgm thread.[/QUOTE] If that's the case I just disagree with you on a matter of seriousness and terminology. If what you say about Fayez is true then he's a sick fuck and a hypocrite.

[QUOTE=01271;47814351]I've been "fgm is worse than circumcision and neither are acceptable" from the start while fayez has been (from what I read) "fgm is worse than circumcision and nobody should care about circumcision don't even ise the same words to describe both of them" and then you come along with "circumcision is on the same level as fgm and both are bad". Are we all misreading each other or are we all gonna mutilate each other again in next week's Swedish fgm thread.[/QUOTE] I never said that we shouldn't care about circumcision, I've just said that FGM just isn't comparable because it's just so much worse, and that it shouldn't be called mutilation. [QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814360]If that's the case I just disagree with you on a matter of seriousness and terminology. If what you say about Fayez is true then he's a sick fuck and a hypocrite.[/QUOTE] How am I a "sick fuck" and a "hypocrite".

[url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1467489&p=47808957&viewfull=1#post47808957[/url] Just literally post about fgm in a circumcision thread despite fgm not being brought up before that point and then immediately say that fgm and circumcision aren't comparable since you just brought it up. Is that not a show of not wanting people to care about circumcision, that you've brought the entire awfulness of fgm in right there because it's supposedly offended by our measly prepuce complaints? What's your endgame?

[QUOTE=01271;47814401][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1467489&p=47808957&viewfull=1#post47808957[/url] Just literally post about fgm in a circumcision thread despite fgm not being brought up before that point and then immediately say that fgm and circumcision aren't comparable since you just brought it up. What's your endgame?[/QUOTE] I brought up FGM because I got pissed that people were posting things like "parents shouldn't be allowed to mutilate their kids penises". In hindsight I shouldn't have brought it up, but whenever I think of genital mutilation, I always jump to FGM because I personally know victims. I just want people to stop calling circumcision "penis mutilation."

No.