Ladies whats your opinion on foreskin?

[Petit Papillon]

I'm going to touch some foreskin... SOOOOOOOON Om nom nom

BED TIME!!!

[vashti]

Wing - For the record, when a circumcision is done, they don't separate the portion of the foreskin that is still fused.

When you go to med school, I will take your rantings a bit more seriously. lol

[doppelgaenger]

I don't need to go to med school to understand the difference between mutilation and necessary medical procedure.

[Junket]

Wing - For the record, when a circumcision is done, they don't separate the portion of the foreskin that is still fused.

When you go to med school, I will take your rantings a bit more seriously. lol

You don't need to go to medical school to have some common sense.

[Petit Papillon]

Hehehhe in polish "foreskin" is "napletek". It sounds so funny. "Hi I'm napletek" hehehe

Bon, I really go to bed now . Wreally

[vashti]

You don't need to go to medical school to have some common sense.

No, but you MIGHT in order to understand that much of the content in the links he posted was utter bullshit.

Anyway, I have long since grown bored of this topic. If you boys don't want to circumcise your babies, then don't. (shrug)

[doppelgaenger]

Vorhautbeschneidung unterwegs!

Sounds like something the Jews would be prosecuted for during the Nazi regime.

[Junket]

No, but you MIGHT in order to understand that much of the content in the links he posted was utter bullshit.

Anyway, I have long since grown bored of this topic. If you boys don't want to circumcise your babies, then don't. (shrug)

I didn't click any of his links, my simple point was countering your argument that a person is more susceptible to STD's. Regardless if someone has a foreskin or not they're always going to be at "greater risk" of contracting an STI if they engage in sexual activity with a person who has them.

How would being circumcised have any bearing on his risk when he's shoving his tongue in an infected woman's vagina?

'Zactly.

Call me Dr. Fras.

[SirWagginston]

Re: lilwing's picture

You guys are funny. The foreskin isn't attached to the head of the penis, so the one on the left doesn't look that way because of a circumcision. Sometimes, they just have that texture, with or without the circumcision.

I don't think those penis heads are rough because of the procedure itself. It's the years of constant stimuli the head will receive when flaccid. The skin is of the head is naturally thin and sensitive, and the foreskin locks in moisture, which it needs to retain its original soft condition. Like the skin on any other part of your body, it will thicken and toughen in defense, or else start to crack and bleed.

[Tiay]

Okay, but as a matter of clarification, removing the entire clitoris would NOT be the equivalent of circumcising a male... removing the clitoral hood would be.

ok, so, in vashti's own words: Male circumcision is equivalent to removal of the clitoral hood.

foreskin = hood. Of course, there are all sorts of problems with truly comparing the two, but let's just agree on that as fact and go from there.

Someone brought up the comparison of removing a woman's clitoral hood. I agree that this is something I would not want done.

Neither would I, and I think everyone can agree that neither would any woman in the developed world or pretty much anywhere where this practice is not woven so deeply into the culture that the local women don't know any better.

again, foreskin = hood

I suppose it's true I have no empathy for this. There's a reason I'm not a psych nurse. I'll save my empathy for people with REAL problems. (shrugs)

so, Lahnnabell, if I may use you in my example.. I'm sure you'd agree that if someone had removed your clitoral hood without your permission, you would consider this a violation of your human rights? And yes I agree, as dono pointed out, on a personal level there'd be nothing you could do but try to get over it and move on. You might not even think of it that often in everyday life- but you'd still be against repeating the practice on someone else; I'm pretty sure Lahnnabell would agree with what I'm getting at here.

Let me further put words in your mouth, Lahnnabell, and guess that even if we hypothetically allow that this procedure reduced your risk of catching STDs, you still might consider it too high a price to pay since you can just use condoms instead-- or at the very least, you still would want to make the choice for yourself, so even giving it the benefit of the doubt at every turn, you'd still be against the practice of doing it to baby girls who cannot give that consent.


Well, for arguments sake, if this did happen to you Lahnna, Vashti would have no empathy for you, nor would she acknowledge that your rights were violated, nor would she see anything wrong with repeating the same ritual on other baby girls.
(After all, that is her view of male circumcision --> foreskin equals hood --> thus circumcision equals clitoral hood removal --> equals your hypothetical situation)



..........
Need I say more?

Probably, because people are so dug into their convictions, which in turn are deeply rooted in their personal lives and experiences, that they can't see what's in front of them.

But I should't have to (say any more), because I think the above is pretty clear.

So, i'll try not to.
I know I keep saying that, only to unleash another rant.
but in comparison to past debates i've been pretty well behaved, I hope...

[SirWagginston]

People are just prone to defend traditions, with conviction and often violently. There is really no rationale behind their comments; any arguments they give you were probably thought up later, after they already believed it, because they're unwilling to question their beliefs. The fact that something is "the way it is" is, to them, a valid argument for why it is good. Scientific method in reverse.

[doppelgaenger]

Another point - if you wouldn't do it to a grown man for the same reasons, why would you do it to a baby boy?

[Junket]

Another point - if you wouldn't do it to a grown man for the same reasons, why would you do it to a baby boy?

Well duh, because the fetus doesn't feel pain.

[doppelgaenger]

Well, so what? Any man who feels pain is a pussy.

[vashti]

People are just prone to defend traditions, with conviction and often violently. There is really no rationale behind their comments; any arguments they give you were probably thought up later, after they already believed it, because they're unwilling to question their beliefs. The fact that something is "the way it is" is, to them, a valid argument for why it is good. Scientific method in reverse.

Don't be silly. No one is defending a tradition for the sake of tradition. Nowhere did I say that everyone SHOULD be circumcised. I merely pointed out the health benefits that DO exist. I have stated (and ALWAYS state) that an uncirc'd man should NOT have it done, and I fully support people who choose not to. That doesn't mean I have to pretend there are absolutely no health benefits (despite medical evidence to the contrary), or pretend that the biased crap lilwang posts is meaningful, nor do I think it is a great idea to encourage his neuroses.

Anyway, I'm done with this boring old argument. We've had it many times before.