Poll of the Day > Why do they call it circumcision instead of male genitalia mutilation?

(+) Yeah! (+)

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

Putting half the male population through torture right after birth is not a "best case, everyone's happy" scenario.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

Putting half the male population through torture right after birth is not a "best case, everyone's happy" scenario.

Some are circumcised, some are not. Most people are happy with the penis they have. And on the end, you cant please everyone. So, its true that everyone wont be happy. But most will...
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

Putting half the male population through torture right after birth is not a "best case, everyone's happy" scenario.

lol torture

it's a quick cut of barely anything that guys don't even remember happening, ok?

i think you should look up the definition of torture, since you're using it incorrectly (surprise surprise), ok?

you're so obtuse, sunny, ok?
---

LinkPizza posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

Putting half the male population through torture right after birth is not a "best case, everyone's happy" scenario.

Some are circumcised, some are not. Most people are happy with the penis they have. And on the end, you cant please everyone. So, its true that everyone wont be happy. But most will...

If no one was circumcised for anything but as a "needed" medical procedure, then 95% of the population wouldn't be circumcised.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

Putting half the male population through torture right after birth is not a "best case, everyone's happy" scenario.

Some are circumcised, some are not. Most people are happy with the penis they have. And on the end, you cant please everyone. So, its true that everyone wont be happy. But most will...

If no one was circumcised for anything but as a "needed" medical procedure, then 95% of the population wouldn't be circumcised.

Thats boring, though. Half and half seems more fun!
---

Aculo posted...

it's a quick cut of barely anything that guys don't even remember happening, ok?

Right, because it's painless and heals instantly.

It's a traumatizing experience for the infant because only about 45% of doctors actually use anesthesia. Not to mention it doesn't last throughout the healing process, so there's that too.

Plus the risk of infection from having it covered in urine and feces on a daily basis.

It's not merely a "quick cut" as you say of "barely anything". It's removing a section of the most important organ in the human body (the skin) and it is without consent of the baby.

I'd be willing to bet you don't know very much, if anything, about the procedure other than "just a quick snip of useless skin, no harm no foul", which is hardly what I would call informed.

So, in your opinion, would it be okay to surgically remove the nipples of every infant boy? They literally don't serve any purpose, it's just a useless artifact remaining from when the baby was in the early developmental stage. Using the logic that "it's useless, it's just a quick cut of barely anything that guys won't even remember happening" fits pretty well here in your opinion.
Plus, let me repeat myself. Unlike the foreskin, they literally do not serve any purpose on a male other than maybe letting other people know when you're cold.

I mean..that's what you're saying isn't it? You're not removing anything vital, and we can finally squash that age old question of why guys have nipples.
---

DrCidd posted...

they literally do not serve any purpose on a male other than maybe letting other people know when you're cold.

My nipples are also erotic.
---

DrCidd posted...

So, in your opinion, would it be okay to surgically remove the nipples of every infant boy? They literally don't serve any purpose, it's just a useless artifact remaining from when the baby was in the early developmental stage. Using the logic that "it's useless, it's just a quick cut of barely anything that guys won't even remember happening" fits pretty well here in your opinion.

if it prevented the nipple-equivalent of smegma, overwhelmingly reduced the chance of a serious infection and several horrific diseases, AND it eliminated the chance of any woman vomiting every time she saw them, then yes... yes, that would be fine, ok?
---

The only reason anyone would think ewww gross is because theyve been conditioned and stigmatized to think so. They havent given any actual thought to it, and usually have done next to no research on the matter.

The overwhelming majority of the world goes natural (uncut). Its only been so prevalent in America because of cultural influences from Puritanism, and Dr. Kellogg (Yes, that Kellogg, the Corn Flakes guy) just to name a few.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
Scroll down to Views on Sexuality and look at Masturbation Prevention. Yes, much of our culture of circumcision is derived from that line of thinking.

And even in America, statistics show fewer and fewer Americans are having their children circumcised, particularly among younger parents.

There are many Doctors who have come forward and condemned the procedure as nothing more than an unnecessary cosmetic practice. And completely debunked and dispelled the notion that natural (uncut) men are more prone to penile cancer or other conditions.

Yes, it is mutilation.
I did hours upon hours of research before I decided not to have my son traumatized and mutilated, and Im very happy I made that choice.

PS. Why does this topic seem to come up here so often? Why are so many dudes here obsessed with making topics about uncircumcised penises?

Edit: spelling

I think you're overplaying the severity of the conditions, not diseases, that (more than likely won't occur anyways) don't even happen in the vast majority of men without circumcisions.

And women's opinion on the matter, are irrelevant because function is more important than fashion.
And on that note just ask any woman who isn't a cock-starved thot if she finds any penises attractive. I'm pretty sure you'll be met with an overwhelming number of "all penises are weird looking" responses.
---

i thanked my dad last night for my circumcision, ok?

he was like, "ummm, ok....you're welcome?"

then we had a beer, ok?
---

Aculo posted...

i thanked my dad last night for my circumcision, ok?

he was like, "ummm, ok....you're welcome?"

then we had a beer, ok?

And then you descended down to your room in his basement, ok?

BeerOnTap posted...

Aculo posted...

i thanked my dad last night for my circumcision, ok?

he was like, "ummm, ok....you're welcome?"

then we had a beer, ok?

And then you descended down to your room in his basement, ok?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObpcGNCU944" data-time="
---

Aculo posted...

hahaha, ok my bro, why don't you try talking to me when you're not so hot, ok?

I'm always hot, babe. This kind of raw sexual magnetism never turns off.

LinkPizza posted...

If we let the parents choose, itll be 50-50. Which is the best case scenario. Then everyones happy.

How in the name of magnetic fridge doors does that make any sense at all? Where are you getting the idea that 50-50 is somehow the best case scenario? Or that having a rough 50-50 split makes everybody happy? Or that letting parents choose will get you a 50-50 split (the current rate in the US is around 77%, down from 83% in the 60's)?

There's just so much wrong with that post, and nothing about it makes sense.

BeerOnTap posted...

And completely debunked and dispelled the notion that natural (uncut) men are more prone to penile cancer or other conditions.

Actually, I'm inclined to believe the increased cancer rate. It's just that the increase is on the order of 1%, which is coincidentally approximately how much penile tissue gets removed by circumcision. Having less penis to become cancerous means less penis cancer, which is a truly mind-blowing realization. Of course, if you're going to use that logic to justify circumcision, the natural extension of that logic is to justify complete penectomies to reduce the rate even further, so...

I said eventually itll get there. I think the amount parent circumcising their kids drops every year. If that continues, itll probably reach 50-50 eventually.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I said eventually itll get there. I think the amount parent circumcising their kids drops every year. If that continues, itll probably reach 50-50 eventually.

And it's dropping because more and more people are recognizing that performing cosmetic surgery on babies is wrong, not because it's naturally trending toward 50-50 and will stabilize around there. Case in point: parents have been allowed to choose freely for as long as the procedure's been around, and the rate still hit 83% in the 60's (possibly higher earlier, but those are the only numbers I bothered finding).

Of course, that still doesn't answer why you think that matters in the slightest.

And now parents are choosing not to. I dont know if itll stabilize or not, tbh. Things are changing toward no circumcising at least a little. It could always change again, though... I guess well have to wait and see what happens, though...
---

Link is failing to realize that first, high circumcision rates only apply in the US, and that if he hadn't been raised in a society that voluntarily disfigured their male infants, he most likely would have zero issues with his perfect and naturally foreskin'ed penis.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Link is failing to realize that first, high circumcision rates only apply in the US, and that if he hadn't been raised in a society that voluntarily disfigured their male infants, he most likely would have zero issues with his perfect and naturally foreskin'ed penis.

I know it only applies to US rates. Maybe you shouldnt just assume things since weve already found out that you dont know that much about me through in many other topics. Im talking about the US in these terms.

And Ive already told you many times in this very topic that had I had an uncircumcised penis, Id be fine with it just like I am now. Maybe a little worse if there was teasing or I got less sex because of it. But Id still mostly be fine with it since I would have had it since birth. But maybe you just keep forgetting. Whatever...
---

DrCidd posted...

On the flip side of the coin, why don't they call it female circumcision?

it's a more concise name. plus normies do it so it's not really considered mutilation by the people who named it/talk about it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

And now parents are choosing not to. I dont know if itll stabilize or not, tbh. Things are changing toward no circumcising at least a little. It could always change again, though... I guess well have to wait and see what happens, though...

That still doesn't explain why you thought that matters. Why do you think that a 50-50 split would "make everyone happy" or be "the best case scenario" more so than the extinction of (non-medical) circumcision would?

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And now parents are choosing not to. I dont know if itll stabilize or not, tbh. Things are changing toward no circumcising at least a little. It could always change again, though... I guess well have to wait and see what happens, though...

That still doesn't explain why you thought that matters. Why do you think that a 50-50 split would "make everyone happy" or be "the best case scenario" more so than the extinction of (non-medical) circumcision would?

Idk. I just figured 50-50 is good. Nice and even. Symmetrical. As for why I care, right now, its because were talking about it. When were not talking about it, Im not thinking about it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Idk. I just figured 50-50 is good. Nice and even. Symmetrical.

And why would that have any value whatsoever in this context?

Idk. I like things being even. Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy. So, split it down the middle or something. Whatever.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy.

And so you think the best course of action is to continue taking the choice away from people and hope that the numbers work out such that everyone has the dick they want? Not to just let people choose what they want for themselves instead of having their parents take away that choice?

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy.

And so you think the best course of action is to continue taking the choice away from people and hope that the numbers work out such that everyone has the dick they want? Not to just let people choose what they want for themselves instead of having their parents take away that choice?

Yeah. I guess. Most people are happy with whatever, anyway. So, I guess so...
---

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy.

And so you think the best course of action is to continue taking the choice away from people and hope that the numbers work out such that everyone has the dick they want? Not to just let people choose what they want for themselves instead of having their parents take away that choice?

If my next child is a boy, I will have him circumcised while he's a baby, ok?
---

Aculo posted...

If my next child is a boy, I will have him circumcised while he's a baby, ok?

Well that's a dick thing to do...

;-]
---

Mover_of_Zigs posted...

Aculo posted...

If my next child is a boy, I will have him circumcised while he's a baby, ok?

Well that's a dick thing to do...

;-]

lmao

/thread
---

LinkPizza posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy.

And so you think the best course of action is to continue taking the choice away from people and hope that the numbers work out such that everyone has the dick they want? Not to just let people choose what they want for themselves instead of having their parents take away that choice?

Yeah. I guess. Most people are happy with whatever, anyway. So, I guess so...

Your best defense for performing elective cosmetic surgery on non-consenting newborns is "Yeah I guess that'll work out alright"? And you don't feel that the utter logical uselessness of that argument means your position might not be worth defending?
---

adjl really cares about penises it seems.
---

adjl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Besides, theres never a situation where everyone is happy.

And so you think the best course of action is to continue taking the choice away from people and hope that the numbers work out such that everyone has the dick they want? Not to just let people choose what they want for themselves instead of having their parents take away that choice?

Yeah. I guess. Most people are happy with whatever, anyway. So, I guess so...

Your best defense for performing elective cosmetic surgery on non-consenting newborns is "Yeah I guess that'll work out alright"? And you don't feel that the utter logical uselessness of that argument means your position might not be worth defending?

Yep. No matter what, the happiness rate is probably going to be the same. Cut or not. But, if its even, it would probably help to cut down the amount of bullying due to it. If one has more has more than the other, bullying is easy. Once its even, it evens the field. Which, in turn, could lessen bullying. Its not a surefire way. But its much better than 20% of people getting bullied because theyre different. Maybe...
---

LinkPizza posted...

No matter what, the happiness rate is probably going to be the same.

Despite the fact that one option lets people choose the one they'll be happiest with, whereas the other forces them to stick with whatever their parents chose whether they like it or not? In practice, it's going to be a relatively inconsequential thing and most people are going to settle with whatever they've got, but the fact remains that an uncircumcised person who decides they'd rather be cut can make that choice for themselves, while a circumcised person who decides they'd rather not be is out of luck.
---

adjl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

No matter what, the happiness rate is probably going to be the same.

Despite the fact that one option lets people choose the one they'll be happiest with, whereas the other forces them to stick with whatever their parents chose whether they like it or not? In practice, it's going to be a relatively inconsequential thing and most people are going to settle with whatever they've got, but the fact remains that an uncircumcised person who decides they'd rather be cut can make that choice for themselves, while a circumcised person who decides they'd rather not be is out of luck.

Though most people would be happy either way. Thats why I believe the rate wont go up. There will always be people on both sides who are unhappy with what they got. Or their parents decision. But most will be happy with what they got. The happiness rate will most likely not got up. Or down. Itll probably stay the same either way. Just because they get the choice doesnt make all of them happy. But giving them a choice also means that the bullying rate would probably be higher. Since it wouldnt definitely be more uncut than cut since most people dont wanna change penises. But keeping it closer to even can help lower the bullying rate. And that could change the happiness of children.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Though most people would be happy either way. Thats why I believe the rate wont go up. There will always be people on both sides who are unhappy with what they got. Or their parents decision. But most will be happy with what they got. The happiness rate will most likely not got up. Or down. Itll probably stay the same either way. Just because they get the choice doesnt make all of them happy. But giving them a choice also means that the bullying rate would probably be higher. Since it wouldnt definitely be more uncut than cut since most people dont wanna change penises. But keeping it closer to even can help lower the bullying rate. And that could change the happiness of children.

You would be surprised at the amount of people who are resentful towards their parents for having them circumcised as a baby. Just because you're happy with yours doesn't mean every other man is.

Just do a little reading on the subject if you don't believe me. But there wouldn't be a movement of cut men protesting infant circumcision if everyone was happy with their penises.
Besides, you seem to always and consistently gloss over the fact that you're robbing a human being of their right to choose for themselves. I'm pretty sure nobody here has addressed that fact. Not to mention the small risk of having to amputate the penis, or even death of the child.

Also, jewish babies have died from being infected with herpes because a rabbi sucks the infant's penis after they cut off the foreskin. Imagine realizing that you got your first blowjob from a man when you were an infant.
---

Probably wouldnt mind the blowhob personally. But I bet there are people resentful towards their parents. But its both way.
Some are resentful for not getting them cut, as well. But I honestly never hear much about the ones resentful for being cut. To be honest, the only ones I ever hear talking about being men being robbed of choice are uncut guys. The reasons I dont care as much is because the uncut guys mad that the other men disnt Have the choice seems weird when most of the oldies who didn't have a choice dont care. The other is because parents make choices for babies. Ive said that before. I dont care if a parent makes a choice for the child. Becuase they could still coerce the child to make that choice. And I think thats much worse than just making it.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Some are resentful for not getting them cut, as well.

But the glaring difference is, those people can go get cut if they're so resentful. The other side can't get UN-cut.

And that's where the problem lies. You fail to acknowledge that repeatedly. You can't argue that those are the same. One is CLEARLY the better option here.
---

LinkPizza posted...

There will always be people on both sides who are unhappy with what they got.

There will indeed. The difference, however, is that those who are uncut and would like to be cut can get a circumcision of their own volition. The reverse is not true. If your goal is to make the most people happy, the way to do that is to let people choose the option that makes them happiest, not choose for them and hope for the best.
---

DrCidd posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Some are resentful for not getting them cut, as well.

But the glaring difference is, those people can go get cut if they're so resentful. The other side can't get UN-cut.

And that's where the problem lies. You fail to acknowledge that repeatedly. You can't argue that those are the same. One is CLEARLY the better option here.

I dont agree. But I dont think I ever will. That one is better, that is.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I dont agree. But I dont think I ever will. That one is better, that is.

One option: Most people will like it. Some won't, but they have the option to change.

Other option: Most people will like it. Some won't, but it sucks to be them because they can't change it.

How can you not agree that those are not only very different situations, but also that the first option is clearly the better one?
---

adjl posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I dont agree. But I dont think I ever will. That one is better, that is.

One option: Most people will like it. Some won't, but they have the option to change.

Other option: Most people will like it. Some won't, but it sucks to be them because they can't change it.

How can you not agree that those are not only very different situations, but also that the first option is clearly the better one?

Its just how I feel. Having the option to change doesnt always mean having the means. For example, it probably cost a good deal. And it takes you out of work for a week. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Missing a week or two of work could be pretty devastating to some. Especially if youre normally getting overtime. Not to mention, even if you had insurance, depending on where you work, it usually doesnt cover it all. So, youd still have to pay. Also, most people have talked about the amazing pleasure you seem to have. It why would someolnpdy who has expirenced that at least once want less. Where if youre cut, what you consider maximum pleasure is already different. Also, while understand that they technically have a choice or getting it done, I still feel like its the parent choice to leave their child unsnipped because I still feel like no one would want to change in their adulthood. Also, getting it as an adult work hurt. Like a lot. Where a baby wont remember anything at all. In the end, I still give my vote to the parent who is able to make the choice. They already do, anyway. They technically are choosing to snip or not as a baby. Thats literally them making a choice. Its just in one case, they can change later. It doesnt mean the parent isn't making a choice. They still are. No matter what, not everyone is going to be happy. But whether most guys are snipped or not, most guys will be happy. But be closer to 50-50 still would help with bullying. Which is why my vote goes there. Since happiness will most likely not change whether more are snip or not...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its just how I feel.

How you feel on a matter like this should be grounded in rational thinking. If you can't substantiate your opinion, you need to start seriously questioning whether or not you should have it.

LinkPizza posted...

Having the option to change doesnt always mean having the means. For example, it probably cost a good deal. And it takes you out of work for a week. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Missing a week or two of work could be pretty devastating to some.

That is indeed a problem with the third world nightmare that is the American health care system. Taking the choice away from adults should not be considered an acceptable band-aid solution for that, though.

LinkPizza posted...

But be closer to 50-50 still would help with bullying. Which is why my vote goes there.

The notion of performing cosmetic surgery on babies in the interest of avoiding bullying is a very, very dangerous road to start going down. Slippery slope arguments are too fallacious to rely entirely on, but if you're going to start suggesting that circumcising babies is okay because making everyone look the same will reduce bullying, you need to be prepared to explain how that exact logic can't be used to justify other cosmetic procedures on babies (or on older children, for that matter).
---

Right? Let's perform cosmetic surgery on all babies so we look the same.
Skin darkening for white babies, skin lightening on black babies.
So we're all a perfect creamy brown instead of white or black. (It really is the best way to have coffee too)
Also, we should make all facial features uniform, and force everyone in the country to eat the same foods and same portion sizes.
This way everyone is more or less standard looking. Because hey, how can I bully you over your appearance if you look pretty much the same as me?

That's how this approach ends up.
---

Taking a week off week for circumcision is like taking a week off for a wisdom teeth extraction or any other minor surgery.

DrCidd posted...

hey, how can I bully you over your appearance if you look pretty much the same as me?

It's pretty solid in Japan, enforce uniformity and people get on better.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

DrCidd posted...

hey, how can I bully you over your appearance if you look pretty much the same as me?

It's pretty solid in Japan, enforce uniformity and people get on better.

You think Japan doesn't have bullying?

_AdjI_ posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

DrCidd posted...

hey, how can I bully you over your appearance if you look pretty much the same as me?

It's pretty solid in Japan, enforce uniformity and people get on better.

You think Japan doesn't have bullying?

Unless hes just saying they have less...
---

LinkPizza posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

DrCidd posted...

hey, how can I bully you over your appearance if you look pretty much the same as me?

It's pretty solid in Japan, enforce uniformity and people get on better.

You think Japan doesn't have bullying?

Unless hes just saying they have less...

Which is also a very questionable statement. Japan really is not a good role model, socially speaking.
---