sjw Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.c...n.ap/index.htmlThe question is, who's more barbaric, those who practice female circumcision, or those who practice male circumcision while being outraged about female circumcision?Shayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I would suggest any parent who wishes to circumcise his or her child at least look around sites like Circumstitions, which support intactness.There was a long discussion on this on SoloHQ a year ago called Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?. A small spin-off discussion called Circumcision: Foreskin Restoration developed. There are several good links provided in it.I believe that in the desert in ancient times with scarce water for bathing, there might have been hygienic reasons for the practice of circumcision developing (health being a reason for many ancient Jewish customs). I see no advantage nowadays and I would just as soon see the practice as a preventative measure abolished. Circumcision of another person, even a baby, is rationally justified only if there is a specific medical reason like an infection. I see no reason whatsoever - and that means never - for removing the pleasure-giving part of the genitals, male or female, of another person as a preventative measure.Adults, of course, have the right to mutilate their own bodies with amputations if they so choose. The problem is in inflicting this on another person. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 The barbaric practice circumcision on males, females, infants or adults is ritualistic mutilation of a perfectly normal organ. It is one of those practices that should have gone the way of the horse and buggy. Medical insurance should consider it elective cosmetic surgery and stop covering it unless there is a medical reason. If it is done for any other reason, cultural, relgious or otherwise, it is not medically necessary and should be paid for privately.Kat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAMF Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 ...it is not medically necessary and should be paid for privately.KatNo pun intended, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Dr. Leonard Peikoff devoted one of his radio progams to this topic some time in the late 1990s. The discussion really raised my awareness of the issue.I think that if Peikoff's assertion that 80% of sensation comes from the sensory input from the foreskin, then the possible reason why so many post baby boomer males resort to Viagra and other stimulants is quite possibly revealed by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Mark; Welcome! Did Peikoff cite any source for his statement about the foreskin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Mark; Welcome! Did Peikoff cite any source for his statement about the foreskin.My recollection of that particular program wasn't all that clear, but I think he was interviewing a doctor on that program and that may have been the source of information. This was going back about 7-8 yeras, when he was on the radio and simulcast on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Has he considered the possibility that Viagra wasn't available before that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiss Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Has he considered the possibility that Viagra wasn't available before that?The comment about Viagra was mine, not his. I simply drew a conclusion as one of many possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Wow! It seems there IS medical evidence about the sensitivity of the foreskin - suddenly male circumcision becomes male genital mutilation.Here's a couple of links about it's importance.http://research.cirp.org/faq1.htmlhttp://research.cirp.org/func1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I must offer that I think the female circumsion as practiced in the Islamic countrys is a worse practice. I also have come to conclusion that male circumsion should not be done to infants usless it is recommended as a medical procedure. I had a procedure invovling my postrate in which I had a conversation with the surgeon in which he indicated circumsion had been preformed on several men my age or older. Penn & Teller did one of their B*llsh*t programs on the subject of male circumsion. That's the name of the program. It's on the Showtime network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) ~ I gotta go with Chris on this.~ 'Circumcision' on males is one thing. It may (I'd say it's still arguable) delete some male pleasure. Mike makes a good defense for such in certain historical communities. ~ But, clitoridectomy? Definitely 'worse.' - Chalk up another absolute-negative for Muslim/Arabic beliefs about forcing others for no 'reason'/motivational-cause other than 'faith' in a book used by guilt-manipulators...and written by others centuries ago...says so.LLAPJ:D Edited January 30, 2007 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now