Posted mostly to annoy the vocal anti-circumcision minority here.
Video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32537110#32537110
:nelson:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2009, 10:03:40 AM
Posted mostly to annoy the vocal anti-circumcision minority here.
Video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32537110#32537110
And an article, since video links suck: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25975170-2703,00.html
ZOMG Obama supports mandatory male genital mutilation!!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2009, 10:03:40 AM
Posted mostly to annoy the vocal anti-circumcision minority here.
If you ever have a son, when people ask you about circumcision, fake a stroke. It diverts an long, stupid argument.
This helpful parenting tip brought to you because I care(tm).
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html
(http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html)
Difficult (given the name of the webpage) to argue that it is not biased, but a very interesting read.
Hmmm, teach my boys about condom use or get them chopped. Tough call. :rolleyes:
In a Western population it hasn't been shown to in any way reduce sexually transmitted infection, IIRC.
I never understood the American fetish with circumcision.
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2009, 02:22:00 PM
I never understood the American fetish with circumcision.
I'm sure there's a website or two addressing this question ... :D
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2009, 02:22:00 PM
I never understood the American fetish with circumcision.
Was supposed to cut down on whacking it.
Directive from ZOG
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 24, 2009, 02:29:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2009, 02:22:00 PM
I never understood the American fetish with circumcision.
Was supposed to cut down on whacking it.
I was circumcised, and I'm damn glad that it cuts down on the wacking. If I'd wacked it
more as a teen than I did, it would have had serious consequences. :lol:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 24, 2009, 10:13:18 AM
ZOMG Obama supports mandatory male genital mutilation!!
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".
I'll live with that.
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".
If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2009, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".
If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".
Maybe if you fuckers could spell "weird" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Quote from: ulmont on August 24, 2009, 04:44:22 PM
Quote from: dps on August 24, 2009, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 04:36:15 PM
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".
If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".
Maybe if you fuckers could spell "weird" we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Whoops... :Embarrass:
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html
(http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html)
Difficult (given the name of the webpage) to argue that it is not biased, but a very interesting read.
It
is an interesting read.
QuoteIn case the reader is wondering why all these bizarre excuses have been advanced to permit circumcision to continue, we offer our best explanation (hypothesis): Circumcision produces circumcisers. The loss of this normal body part is, in some instances, so profound that the person who has lost it is unwilling to admit that anything is wrong. If he becomes a doctor, he may not hesitate to perform circumcisions.
Another hypothesis goes further: Some who have been circumcised cannot stand that someone else might go through life intact. If that person is a doctor, he sees to it. If he is a father, he may insist that his sons be circumcised. A recent analysis stated that the most important factor associated with the decision to circumcise was whether or not the father was circumcised.27
We have the greatest admiration for those fathers and those physicians who, while circumcised themselves, say "No" to having their sons and patients circumcised.
What a wackjob. :lmfao:
Quote from: callmeclemens on August 24, 2009, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 24, 2009, 10:13:18 AM
ZOMG Obama supports mandatory male genital mutilation!!
Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.
Weird penis's
what?
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on August 24, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html
(http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html)
Difficult (given the name of the webpage) to argue that it is not biased, but a very interesting read.
It is an interesting read.
QuoteIn case the reader is wondering why all these bizarre excuses have been advanced to permit circumcision to continue, we offer our best explanation (hypothesis): Circumcision produces circumcisers. The loss of this normal body part is, in some instances, so profound that the person who has lost it is unwilling to admit that anything is wrong. If he becomes a doctor, he may not hesitate to perform circumcisions.
Another hypothesis goes further: Some who have been circumcised cannot stand that someone else might go through life intact. If that person is a doctor, he sees to it. If he is a father, he may insist that his sons be circumcised. A recent analysis stated that the most important factor associated with the decision to circumcise was whether or not the father was circumcised.27
We have the greatest admiration for those fathers and those physicians who, while circumcised themselves, say "No" to having their sons and patients circumcised.
What a wackjob. :lmfao:
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
I came for Marti's wild overblown rhetoric, and I finally got it.
Thank you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 24, 2009, 05:41:28 PM
I came for Marti's wild overblown rhetoric, and I finally got it.
Thank you.
I always deliver. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsavegabc.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Flex-luthor-wrong1.jpg&hash=3c872ccb5e3f28d6a79a60fd87b7270997e19980)
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
While I appreciate your good wishes, I take it you haven't read the article. :D
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24circumcision.html?_r=1&hp
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
I guess Marti hasn't learned yet that the majority of North Americans are, in point of fact,
not Jews. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
You're right, they're not driven by religious desire, they're driven by the fact that cut ones look better.
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?
You mean the off chance that my sons might have unprotected sex with a woman in Africa... :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2009, 05:59:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?
You mean the off chance that my sons might have unprotected sex with a woman in Africa... :P
Hey, you want them to be well-travelled and have lots of new experiences, right? :D
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
I am perfectly aware of that. I am also aware that now this is a cultural phenomenon, which started from religious drive of the pilgrims, but when that no longer cut it (pun intended), a bogus justification of "preventing masturbation" was made up, and when this one became unacceptable, various post-factum "medical" justifications were similarly invented.
The fact is - as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out - it offers no proven benefits vis-a-vis STD transmission in the Western society. As to hygienic concerns, well again, in the West, anyone with an access to soap and running water can achieve these benefits without having to resort to genital mutilation of minors.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:13:01 PM
I am perfectly aware of that. I am also aware that now this is a cultural phenomenon, which started from religious drive of the pilgrims, but when that no longer cut it (pun intended), a bogus justification of "preventing masturbation" was made up, and when this one became unacceptable, various post-factum "medical" justifications were similarly invented.
The fact is - as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out - it offers no proven benefits vis-a-vis STD transmission in the Western society. As to hygienic concerns, well again, in the West, anyone with an access to soap and running water can achieve these benefits without having to resort to genital mutilation of minors.
It originated with the
Pilgrims now? :D
In point of fact ... it was
never a religious matter in N. America, exept for Jews & Muslims.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2009, 05:48:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsavegabc.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Flex-luthor-wrong1.jpg&hash=3c872ccb5e3f28d6a79a60fd87b7270997e19980)
How long till Obama reforms the US health care and euthanizes you?
Men/boys are nasty. It stinks. Cut it off.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
I am perfectly aware of that. I am also aware that now this is a cultural phenomenon, which started from religious drive of the pilgrims, but when that no longer cut it (pun intended), a bogus justification of "preventing masturbation" was made up, and when this one became unacceptable, various post-factum "medical" justifications were similarly invented.
The fact is - as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out - it offers no proven benefits vis-a-vis STD transmission in the Western society. As to hygienic concerns, well again, in the West, anyone with an access to soap and running water can achieve these benefits without having to resort to genital mutilation of minors.
I think you are somewhat misinformed on this one. Which is fair enough, as I would similarily have absolutely no idea about the practices of circumcision in Poland.
The Pilgrims had nothing to do with it. It started in around 1900, and apparently rates shot up post WWII so that the large majority of boys were circumcised. Rates have declined somewhat, but I think the majority of male infants are still circumcised.
I believe you're right that it's as much cultural as it is hygenie, but religion has little to nothing to do with it (except for the Jews of course).
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
Hmmm, teach my boys about condom use or get them chopped. Tough call. :rolleyes:
Are you going to include a lesson that condoms suck, or do they have to figure it out on their own?
Granted, not as much as syphilis, but they do suck.
I recommend everyone try it at least once before you start bashing it as painful or unnecessary.
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
What a wackjob. :lmfao:
I don't know that he's much of a whack job when you consider that the primary reason most non-Jewish men have their boys circumsized in the U.S. is for purely aesthetic reasons. They want their kids to look like everyone else in the locker room. It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2009, 07:12:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 24, 2009, 01:27:37 PM
Hmmm, teach my boys about condom use or get them chopped. Tough call. :rolleyes:
Are you going to include a lesson that condoms suck, or do they have to figure it out on their own?
Granted, not as much as syphilis, but they do suck.
Gotta wear a condom anyway, might as well have it wrapped around the full deal.
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out
Who's this?
Euros can have all the dick cheese they want.
Over here we have this stuff called soap. We take showers and stuff.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 24, 2009, 09:04:35 PM
Euros can have all the dick cheese they want.
And natural body odors...:x
You guys are exagering what not being circumcize does here.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIzjzyhnJn4ttGInSaFzYthkIIygD9AA39OO0
QuoteCircumcision doesn't protect gays from AIDS virus
By MIKE STOBBE (AP) – 20 hours ago
ATLANTA — Circumcision, which has helped prevent AIDS among heterosexual men in Africa, doesn't help protect gay men from the virus, according to the largest U.S. study to look at the question.
The research, presented at a conference Tuesday, is expected to influence the government's first guidance on circumcision.
Circumcision "is not considered beneficial" in stopping the spread of HIV through gay sex, said Dr. Peter Kilmarx, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, the CDC is still considering recommending it for other groups, including baby boys and high-risk heterosexual men.
UNAIDS and other international health organizations promote circumcision, the cutting away of the foreskin, as an important strategy for reducing the spread of the AIDS virus. There hasn't been the same kind of push for circumcision in the United States.
For one thing, nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised — a much higher proportion than most other countries. Worldwide, the male circumcision rate is estimated at about 30 percent.
Also, while HIV spreads primarily through heterosexual sex in Africa and some other parts of the world, in the United States it has mainly infected gay men. Only about 4 percent of U.S. men are gay, according to preliminary CDC estimates released at the conference this week. But they account for more than half of the new HIV infections each year.
Previous research has suggested circumcision doesn't make a difference when anal sex is involved. The latest study, by CDC researchers, looked at nearly 4,900 men who had anal sex with an HIV-infected partner and found the infection rate, about 3.5 percent, was approximately the same whether the men were circumcised or not.
Government recommendations on circumcision are still being written and may not be final until next year, following public comment. CDC doctors and many experts believe there is a good argument for recommending that baby boys and heterosexual men at a higher risk for HIV be circumcised.
The definition of "high risk" is still being discussed, said Kilmarx, chief of the epidemiology branch in the CDC's HIV division.
Circumcision is a sensitive issue laden with cultural and religious meaning, particularly when babies are involved, Kilmarx acknowledged.
"It's seen by many as more than just as medical procedure," he said. It's possible the government won't make recommendations but instead will promote an education campaign for parents about the procedure's potential benefits and risks, he added.
The prospect of the government promoting circumcision of infants has already drawn fire from an advocacy group called Intact America. The organization, based in Tarrytown, N.Y., parked a motorized billboard this week outside the hotel hosting the HIV conference, displaying the message: "Tell the CDC that circumcising babies doesn't prevent HIV."
"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 24, 2009, 09:03:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 24, 2009, 05:52:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on August 24, 2009, 05:40:14 PM
I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.
I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.
Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)? That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?
as the only medical practitioner who posted in this thread pointed out
Who's this?
Lucidor.
Quote from: merithyn on August 24, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
What a wackjob. :lmfao:
I don't know that he's much of a whack job when you consider that the primary reason most non-Jewish men have their boys circumsized in the U.S. is for purely aesthetic reasons. They want their kids to look like everyone else in the locker room. It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have. :)
So it's a cosmetic surgery on non-consenting infants. You find it acceptable? What if parents wanted their children's ears to look like those of a bat? Or cover their infants' bodies with elaborate tatoos?
Quote from: merithyn on August 24, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 24, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
What a wackjob. :lmfao:
I don't know that he's much of a whack job when you consider that the primary reason most non-Jewish men have their boys circumsized in the U.S. is for purely aesthetic reasons. They want their kids to look like everyone else in the locker room. It is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have. :)
Except that this isn't at all true. :)
The primary reason most parents who are not Jewish circumcize their children is for its alleged medical and hygenic benefits.
Are you
seriously defending the notion that parents have their kids circumsized because they literally cannot stand the thought of the kids enjoying their intact foreskins when they can't? :lol:
Wow, some of you guys are really passionate about this subject :huh:
I shower. I use soap. I've had sex with quite a few women. I never heard a complaint.
I suspect that is the case for 99% of uncircumsized men in the western world. Get over it folks.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 10:56:28 AM
Wow, some of you guys are really passionate about this subject :huh:
I shower. I use soap. I've had sex with quite a few women. I never heard a complaint.
I suspect that is the case for 99% of uncircumsized men in the western world. Get over it folks.
I think you are taking this a bit too seriously.
:lol:
Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 11:01:49 AM
:lol:
Nevermind I just read the rest of the thread.
Yeah I was just joking when I was mocking the uncircumsized earlier.
Still if I have sons they will be circumsized. It is a tradition now.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?
The Valmy School of Circumsicion?
Quote from: Martinus on August 26, 2009, 10:15:50 AM
Quote"It's removing healthy, functioning, sexual and protective tissue from a person who cannot consent. You're mutilating a child," said Georgeanne Chapin, the group's executive director.
I'm surprised that the director of Intact America would feel that way. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on August 24, 2009, 07:22:27 PMIt is, in truth, the first cosmetic surgery a boy will have. :)
Speaking of male plastic surgery, I sat next to Rupert Everett in a cafe today :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 26, 2009, 11:15:38 AM
Speaking of male plastic surgery, I sat next to Rupert Everett in a cafe today :)
Fantastic actor.
Quote from: Valmy on August 26, 2009, 11:03:28 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 11:02:26 AM
Btw whatever happened to that school of yours?
The Valmy School of Circumsicion?
No, the thing you needed a transcript from France for.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 26, 2009, 11:39:41 AM
No, the thing you needed a transcript from France for.
Oh yeah! That went great I am starting my first class...in...an hour or so.
You were a huge help thanks a ton.
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2009, 02:22:00 PM
I never understood the American fetish with circumcision.
uncircumcised penii look gross. eww. savages.
Its rather odd that it appears to be the exact opposite of what you (and the quakjob article as well) might expect - it is the uncircumcised that appear to really, really care about the issue, and get all worked up about it.
I am circumcised, my son is as well, albeit over my (mild) objections. Shrug. It really isn't that big of a deal, and comparing it to cutting off someones ears or whatever shows where the true emotive side of the issue lies.