Male Circumcision: Mutilation or Modification?

[BaalChatzaf]

Some folks regard circumcision of the human male organ as mutilation. Others regard it as a useful modification.

I favor the latter. Forget the nonsense of the Lord commanding it. If I were Abraham I would have asked God why he made penises with foreskins in the first place, if it is a good idea to remove the foreskin.

Male circumcision is a good idea. It promotes cleanliness, it removes the ugliness of smegma (ugh!) and it turns out to have beneficial side effects, to wit, it lessens the risk of cancer of the glans and apparently lowers the rate of HIV infection.

Circumcision is no more mutilation than is plastic surgery, removal of adenoids and tonsils and removal of polyps. Also the removal of vestigial digits of of polydactylic folks and the correction of hare-lip (which is just ugly and not life threatening).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

I think you are prejewdiced.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why was this posted in Aesthetics? This is not about art. I want to move this thread.

We have a similar one in Parenting called "Barbarians" (starting off with female circumcision), but the approach seemed more appropriate there. It seems weird to move the thread over there.

Suggestions anyone? Living Room maybe?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Some folks regard circumcision of the human male organ as mutilation. Others regard it as a useful modification.

I favor the latter. Forget the nonsense of the Lord commanding it. If I were Abraham I would have asked God why he made penises with foreskins in the first place, if it is a good idea to remove the foreskin.

Male circumcision is a good idea. It promotes cleanliness, it removes the ugliness of smegma (ugh!) and it turns out to have beneficial side effects, to wit, it lessens the risk of cancer of the glans and apparently lowers the rate of HIV infection.

Circumcision is no more mutilation than is plastic surgery, removal of adenoids and tonsils and removal of polyps. Also the removal of vestigial digits of of polydactylic folks and the correction of hare-lip (which is just ugly and not life threatening).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al;

With all due respect most of the above applies to primitive areas where soap is not available. Penn & Teller did a great Bullshit episode on the subject and changed my mind on the subject.

[Dragonfly]

[With all due respect most of the above applies to primitive areas where soap is not available. Penn & Teller did a great Bullshit episode on the subject and changed my mind on the subject.

Indeed, those are typical rationalizations. If people want to mutilate themselves, fine, but let them decide for themselves when they are old enough to make such a decision (and can decide whether they want to have tattoos and piercings); don't saddle your child with such an unasked, ugly mutilation which is completely unnecessary. It isn't that difficult to teach him some elementary hygiene.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am moving this thread to the Living Room section.

Here is an appropriate post from last year that I made in the thread Barbarians in the Parenting section.

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

[BaalChatzaf]

I am moving this thread to the Living Room section.

Here is an appropriate post from last year that I made in the thread Barbarians in the Parenting section.

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

There are even -more- reasons now to circumcise. Cancer and HIV. And no smegma (ugh!). Since parents have the right to remove potentially malignant polyps from their underage youngsters, they have every right to remove a body part that can lead to cancer or infection. Circumcision is promotes health. And when done on infants it is done when there is hardly any perception of pain. A circumcised member is a clean member. And a clean member is a happy member.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

There are even -more- reasons now to circumcise. Cancer and HIV. And no smegma (ugh!). Since parents have the right to remove potentially malignant polyps from their underage youngsters, they have every right to remove a body part that can lead to cancer or infection.

Then they should also remove the breasts and the uterus of their daughters, as these potentially malignant organs in many cases lead to cancer.

[BaalChatzaf]

There are even -more- reasons now to circumcise. Cancer and HIV. And no smegma (ugh!). Since parents have the right to remove potentially malignant polyps from their underage youngsters, they have every right to remove a body part that can lead to cancer or infection.

Then they should also remove the breasts and the uterus of their daughters, as these potentially malignant organs in many cases lead to cancer.

The female breast is the proper instrument for nourishing a newborn or infant. It is not a reservoir of filth and foulness. The chamber formed by the foreskin and the glans on the other hand is a dirty, nasty place. Filled with foulness and smegma (ugh!). The foreskin has no necessary function. People can live without it nicely. A women can live without her breasts but without them she cannot -properly- nourish her young children. Mother's milk is best for infants and helps to produce immunity in the infant for many diseases that might otherwise kill the infant. To remove a woman's breasts unnecessarily puts her children at risk.

The uterus is the future of the human race. To remove the uterus of women unnecessarily is to doom the human race to extinction.

The foreskin, like polyps serve no useful function. Likewise the appendix. Unfortunately there is no risk free or risk minimal way to remove the appendix as it involves cutting into the viscera. Thus, the appendix is removed only when infected where the risk of not operating is greater than the risk of operating. If there were some risk-free or risk-minimal way of removing the appendix, it should be removed at birth or shortly thereafter. Fortunately the unnecessary foreskin is external and can be removed with little risk or pain. (Newborns do not have a well developed nervous system and do not feel pain as acutely as as older children or adults). That is why adult circumcision is a barbarism. If it is done at all it should be done shortly after birth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Ba'al; On the pain question for male infants how the hell do you know.

[BAMF]

Romance Room?

[Brant Gaede]

There are even -more- reasons now to circumcise. Cancer and HIV. And no smegma (ugh!). Since parents have the right to remove potentially malignant polyps from their underage youngsters, they have every right to remove a body part that can lead to cancer or infection.

Then they should also remove the breasts and the uterus of their daughters, as these potentially malignant organs in many cases lead to cancer.

The female breast is the proper instrument for nourishing a newborn or infant. It is not a reservoir of filth and foulness. The chamber formed by the foreskin and the glans on the other hand is a dirty, nasty place. Filled with foulness and smegma (ugh!). The foreskin has no necessary function. People can live without it nicely. A women can live without her breasts but without them she cannot -properly- nourish her young children. Mother's milk is best for infants and helps to produce immunity in the infant for many diseases that might otherwise kill the infant. To remove a woman's breasts unnecessarily puts her children at risk.

The uterus is the future of the human race. To remove the uterus of women unnecessarily is to doom the human race to extinction.

The foreskin, like polyps serve no useful function. Likewise the appendix. Unfortunately there is no risk free or risk minimal way to remove the appendix as it involves cutting into the viscera. Thus, the appendix is removed only when infected where the risk of not operating is greater than the risk of operating. If there were some risk-free or risk-minimal way of removing the appendix, it should be removed at birth or shortly thereafter. Fortunately the unnecessary foreskin is external and can be removed with little risk or pain. (Newborns do not have a well developed nervous system and do not feel pain as acutely as as older children or adults). That is why adult circumcision is a barbarism. If it is done at all it should be done shortly after birth.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What if the appendix has a useful function? For instance, as a reservoir for bacteria to rebacterialize the gut when the gut bacteria have been genocidaled by illness or antibiotics.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

What if the appendix has a useful function? For instance, as a reservoir for bacteria to rebacterialize the gut when the gut bacteria have been genocidaled by illness or antibiotics.

--Brant

Do you have any evidence to that effect? We do know that people whose appendix has been removed live just as healthy a life (statistically) as those whose appendix has not become infected and is not removed. It is not necessary to remove the appendix unless a special need arises.

Likewise it is not immediately necessary to remove the foreskin, but leaving it in place increases the the risk of HIV and cancer of the glans. And the foreskin can be removed with virtually risk for persons who are not bleeders. A clean member is a happy member.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

What if the appendix has a useful function? For instance, as a reservoir for bacteria to rebacterialize the gut when the gut bacteria have been genocidaled by illness or antibiotics.

--Brant

Do you have any evidence to that effect? We do know that people whose appendix has been removed live just as healthy a life (statistically) as those whose appendix has not become infected and is not removed. It is not necessary to remove the appendix unless a special need arises.

Likewise it is not immediately necessary to remove the foreskin, but leaving it in place increases the the risk of HIV and cancer of the glans. And the foreskin can be removed with virtually risk for persons who are not bleeders. A clean member is a happy member.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I think you are prejewdiced.

Now that is really funny!!!!!

[Selene]

I can only speak from a male perspective, but the feedback that I have had from submissives of their view of the circumsized penis is aesthetic. Mimi at the conference made reference to what she would have liked to "see" in the Reardon scene from Atlas.

[Chris Grieb]

I refered to the Penn & Teller program about male circumcision. Has anyone else seen it?

I do wish Rand had said more about the male anatomy but I doubt Miss Rand would had gotten that graphic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why was this posted in Aesthetics? This is not about art. I want to move this thread.

We have a similar one in Parenting called "Barbarians" (starting off with female circumcision), but the approach seemed more appropriate there. It seems weird to move the thread over there.

Suggestions anyone? Living Room maybe?l

Romance Room?

Kori,

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Thanks for the belly-laugh.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

What if the appendix has a useful function? For instance, as a reservoir for bacteria to rebacterialize the gut when the gut bacteria have been genocidaled by illness or antibiotics.

--Brant

Do you have any evidence to that effect? We do know that people whose appendix has been removed live just as healthy a life (statistically) as those whose appendix has not become infected and is not removed. It is not necessary to remove the appendix unless a special need arises.

Likewise it is not immediately necessary to remove the foreskin, but leaving it in place increases the the risk of HIV and cancer of the glans. And the foreskin can be removed with virtually risk for persons who are not bleeders. A clean member is a happy member.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It was some scientific speculation reported in my local paper a few days ago. My only point is be careful what you cut off or cut out.

"A clean member is a happy member." Never thought to ask if it was happy.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Ba'al; The ears get dirty. Should they be removed?

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al; The ears get dirty. Should they be removed?

No. Ears are essential for a full and proper human life. The foreskin is not essential for any vital function or for being human. It is dispensable. The ears are not. Loss of ears (hearing) is a major blow. It is survivable, but the life of a deaf person is greatly diminished. Loss of the foreskin produces none of these grim effects. In fact getting rid of the foreskin has major long term health advantages. A lower rate of cancer of the glans and a lower rate of infection by venereal disease. It is too bad we cannot remove the appendix with equal ease and safety. A circumcised knob is a clean knob and a clean knob is a happy knob.

On this occasion I will relate a story from my youth. In High School we had swimming in the buff for the male class. Before we were allowed in the pool the swimming coach, Coach Hyims would have us do short arm drill. "Skin back!" he would command. All the lads with foreskins were required to pull them back to demonstrate that their dongs were squeaky clean. Apparently being required to shower before entering the pool was not sufficient for Coach Hyims. Some of the gentile lads were not thorough in their cleansing so they had to be checked. Coach Hyims wold not permit -his- pool to be fouled by filth and smegma (ugh!). The Jewish lads and the gentiles who were circumcised got a pass. Our cleanliness was manifest and visible. We had dongs clean enough to be approved by God and Coach Hyims but mostly by Coach Hyims. We gave Coach Hyims a nick-name. We called him Skin-Back. Way to go Coach Hyims! Way to go Skin-Back! A clean pool is a happy pool.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Bob;

How much do the outer ears contribute to hearing? I don't think removing them would lead to deafness.

May I suggest that your interest in this subject is not healthy. Coach Hyims doesn't sound too healthy either.

I suspect the Coach has passed on.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Selene]

Ba'al; The ears get dirty. Should they be removed?

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty".

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al; The ears get dirty. Should they be removed?

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty".

One word: smegma (ugh!).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al; The ears get dirty. Should they be removed?

LOL. Excellent. The whole internal concept of "dirty" is a relative term and heavily laden with Ba'al's apparent psyco-sexual dysfunctions. I do not think he wishes to have a direct and open discussion of sensual/sexual/erotic reality issues of "dirty".

One word: smegma (ugh!).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is that from personal experience, scientific data or women that you have heard it from?