Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More on the circumcision warfront...

I've been an active member of cf_hardcore for some time, a debate about which is better "cut or uncut" pulled me in. With the advances the MGM Bill (a bill [proposed law] which will completely outlaw circumcision in the United States for anyone under 18 years of age) has made in the past few months, I thought it would be a fun place to debate some of the issues behind the MGM Bill. Can you say "flame on!"?

It's simply amazing what happens when a proposed LAW is put on the agenda that threatens "the old ways" (whether Jewish or not!) Proof again that people resist change.

Thanks to ONE person in the group, tsorton, who wrote:

Wow, we finally hit a new level of hypocrisy.

To summarise:

Anyone who supports that bill is:

a) anti-semit, because no other religion but Judaism's requires breeders to mutilate their larvae for the glory of the gawd;

b) if not anti-semit then religiously intolerant arsehole (or both) because, you know, it's gazillion years old tradition and an "important religious ritual" and therefore it is good;

c) male chauvinist - because there is nothing wrong with mutilating male larvae (see above) and talking about it makes female circumcision less barbaric and is an attack on women (best WTF argument I have ever seen);

d) prejudiced against those fine folks who believe it's OK to mutilate male larvae because "it's aesthetically more pleasing" and "*I* like it that way";

Also, apparently it's OK to post news articles/blogs/etc about IDWIYO as long as it has nothing to do with circumcision, because (see all of the above).

You get the idea... If you want to see the entire thread of messages (you must be sooo bored), you can do so by clicking here.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 29th, 2006 03:44 pm (UTC)
uncut cocks look like shit....
Jan. 29th, 2006 03:55 pm (UTC)
An anonymous pussy writes...
An anonymous reader from Kenoshi, WI, who's too chicken to sign in and/or use his own username for fear of retribution (who's a Road Runner customer at IP address [please, don't hammer him!!]) writes:

uncut cocks look like shit....

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone uncut grows up and chooses that they prefer to be circumcised, great for them! I chose to get circumcised in January 2005! But removing a part of a healthy baby boy in the name of what SOMEONE ELSE considers pretty or not is simply wrong.

Why would anyone cut off such a valuable body part?

The world origins of circumcision are unknown. However, circumcision began in the United States in the late 1800's largely because some doctors thought that it prevented masturbation, which at the time was thought to be harmful. But once that and other myths were proven wrong, new reasons were created to perpetuate circumcision, most notably that a circumcised penis is more "hygienic" than an intact penis. Other reasons that are used to justify circumcision include flawed studies suggesting that it protects against disease, that it makes boys look the same as their fathers or others in their community, and for religious reasons. Medicaid reimbursement for circumcision in thirty-four states also provides financial incentives for circumcision.

The unique nerve endings that are cut off during circumcision cannot be restored. However, other significant damage from circumcision can be reversed through a method called non-surgical foreskin restoration, which involves stretching the remaining shaft skin over the glans to grow new skin. By keeping the glans and remaining inner foreskin area covered and protected, the keratin that built up over the lifetime of the victim slowly peels away, resulting in a significant improvement to sexual sensitivity. The natural gliding mechanism can also be restored to some extent, provided that enough new skin can be regrown. -- But this is never the same as the "original equipment."

Jan. 29th, 2006 05:30 pm (UTC)
Islam also requires circumcision, but not of infants. Traditionally it's done as a male rite of passage and it isn't as complete as western circumcision either.

I will never forget being in Turkey and seeing all these young boys in really ornate satin quasi military uniforms out for tea and cherry sodas with their families. (think of an all boy's production of the Merry Widow). I had several tour books and had loaned one in advance to my friend Ann who was travelling with me, so I hadn't read that one book. Well she sat there and began telling me with a straight face that the boys were all celebrating circumcision day. Of course they were, thought I. I was convinced she was making it all up - it's sooo her sense of humor, but sure enough when we got back to the hotel she showed me the passage in the one book. Very festive.
Jan. 29th, 2006 05:52 pm (UTC)
Islam also requires circumcision, but not of infants. Traditionally it's done as a male rite of passage and it isn't as complete as western circumcision either.

Depending on the group of Islam you are looking at, circumcision is required at different points of life. The MGMbill does not halt adult circumcision with a consenting adult, only for a minor (under 18.)

If someone at 18 or older chooses circumcision, for whatever reason, they are welcome to it! -- Heck, you know MY story!

\/ Chaz

Jan. 29th, 2006 05:55 pm (UTC)
Sometimes I wish I didn't...
Jan. 29th, 2006 06:08 pm (UTC)

Sometimes I wish I didn't...

Are you being serious?

(Deleted comment)
Jan. 29th, 2006 07:36 pm (UTC)
Of course, aesthetic should have no say in debate at all (I am refering to infant circumcision, not adult. Some women might not like an uncut man, but then again, some would...I don't see straight men starting any Campaign to Ban Saggy Titted Women anywhere. Who the fuck cares about aesthetics where it comes to an unnecessary surgery on an infant?

Hmmm.... and the religious thing....I could so come off as an anti-semite if I dared...of course, I'm not. But I can't help to point out that an 8 day old baby boy can feel pain but cannot choose his religion.

Cut, uncut...who cares? All I know, if it belongs to an 8 day old baby and it is natural and healthy, leave it as is, and if and when that 8 day old baby becomes an 18 year old man, he can begin to amass the available data and info needed to decide for himself whether he wants to circumcise or not.

Thanks for your support!

I have just officially become a temporary state office to lobby for both a federal and statewide consideration of this bill.

My job is to email and/or fax a state level MGM Bill proposal to every member of my state legislature on Monday, February 6, 2006. This is the same day that MGMbill.org faxes its bill proposals to Congress and the California Legislature.

Currently there are MGM Bill proposals available for twenty states. If you live in an area without an MGM Bill proposal, they will write one for your state if you want to become a temporary state office. We will also provide you with a cover letter several weeks before the bill submission date so you can drop in your name and the name of each legislator.

If you feel even half as strongly about this as I do, please consider joining the fight at http://www.mgmbill.org/stateofficeguidelines.htm

It's not much to ask... I'm so opposed to RIC (routine infant circumcision) that in addition to e-mailing and faxing my views about this, I am going to my state capital to HAND DELIVER it to each state rep.!
Jan. 29th, 2006 10:04 pm (UTC)
I am uncut
and happily so, I truly believe that circumcision is a choice that should be made by the informed adult male, not some stupid religious tradition or parents who have skewed ideas of what is aesthetically pleasing.

Here's one for stupid broads who have problems with uncuts. Most men like big boobs, does that mean that itty bitty titty committee girls should be forced to get implants?
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

September 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow