A saw and a man

[kibbs]

genitally mutilated

Jesus Christ why do these threads always end up here?

[Glacier]

There are probably no women that prefer to be genitally mutilated would be my guess.

Exactly. There is nothing imperfect or wrong with a circumcised penis, as in there is no loss of function.

[underscore]

You're joking, right?

You've GOT to be joking.

Anything less just depletes the value of your post.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate

Mutilate:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Are you joking? Going by that definition "mutilate" is completely subjective.

[Graham Adder]

Mutilate:

1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Are you joking? Going by that definition "mutilate" is completely subjective.

How is it "subjective"?
Please 'splain.

When a male child is born, they have all their body parts intact.
That IS the perfect form of a human male child.
Intact.
Unaltered.

When you remove the foreskin, it alters the sensations. This is not up for argument as it IS fact.
Think about it.

When you alter the sensations intended by our design, you are in FACT...mutilating that child's penis...genitalia.

As for females not wanting to be mutilated, I am quite certain there are cases where the FEW would in fact choose this likely on account of religious or societal pressures. They may even make such a choice over deeply engrained sexual deviance. For whatever reason you are bound to find those who DO in FACT choose genital mutilation.

The same goes for males. There are a FEW who do in FACT choose to mutilate likely on account of religious or societal pressures. They may even make such a choice over deeply engrained sexual deviance. For whatever reason you are bound to find those who DO in FACT choose genital mutilation.

You can't escape the truth.

Circumcision IS genital mutilation.

[Glacier]

No it isn't... http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sheryl-sap ... 46749.html

P.S. myself nor any of my children are circumcised, but I cannot deny that there is a net benefit to circumcision. Two examples are less STDs and less chances of serious infections (a son of someone I know had a very serious penile infection as a result of the chemical found in the diapers, which would not have been there if he had been circumcised).

As for sexual pleasure:

Two other studies released in Rome added to the good news about circumcision:

-- Circumcised men say they experience greater sexual pleasure after surgery, a finding that should help overcome unease about the operation.

Investigators at the University of Makerere interviewed 316 men, average age 22, who had been circumcised between February and September 2009.

A year after the operation, 220 of the volunteers said they were sexually active, of whom a quarter said they used condoms.

A total of 87.7 per cent said they found it easier to reach an orgasm after being circumcised, and 92.3 per cent said they experienced more sexual pleasure.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6098865549

[Graham Adder]

Keep it clean.
Simple.

As for more pleasure after being mutilated, I'd like to see the stat's after the exposed nerve endings become desensitized from constant friction and exposure.

I'm intact.
Never been mutilated.
Never been infected.
Always careful where I take a dip.
No issues.

I also have a few inches of body tissue that has nerve endings...intact...that mutilated males do not have.
How can it not have an effect?
Tell me that.

Now...on to the stat's given:
I always question the doctors that praise such genital mutilation, and I wonder to myself if they are supportive on account of a defense mechanism, or religious background.
Those are the questions I go to.
That doesn't mean to say I have the answers nor believe wholeheartedly that I am right and they are wrong.

I do know this:
circumcision is genital mutilation, no matter what the reason behind such action.

[underscore]

When a male child is born, they have all their body parts intact.
That IS the perfect form of a human male child.
Intact.
Unaltered.

When you remove the foreskin, it alters the sensations. This is not up for argument as it IS fact.
Think about it.

When you alter the sensations intended by our design, you are in FACT...mutilating that child's penis...genitalia.

As for females not wanting to be mutilated, I am quite certain there are cases where the FEW would in fact choose this likely on account of religious or societal pressures. They may even make such a choice over deeply engrained sexual deviance. For whatever reason you are bound to find those who DO in FACT choose genital mutilation.

The same goes for males. There are a FEW who do in FACT choose to mutilate likely on account of religious or societal pressures. They may even make such a choice over deeply engrained sexual deviance. For whatever reason you are bound to find those who DO in FACT choose genital mutilation.

You can't escape the truth.

Circumcision IS genital mutilation.

That may be the perfect form TO YOU but it may not be for everyone else. Circumcision may be mutilation TO YOU based on your views but that is not a FACT, far from it.

[Graham Adder]

That may be the perfect form TO YOU but it may not be for everyone else. Circumcision may be mutilation TO YOU based on your views but that is not a FACT, far from it.

Oh c'mon....

By your standards a guy that slices his penis full length isn't mutilating himself if HE thinks that's how his Johnson was supposed to look.
If he never used it for orgasm or insertion, then his slicing hasn't altered its function either.

Gimme a freakin' break.

There are arguments for and against, but in the end it is still FACT that circumcision IS genital mutilation.
You can support it all you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

[Sneaksuit]

Circumcision is politically sanctioned genital mutilation.

http://www.davidwilton.com/files/johnso ... on2010.pdf

Why didn't God design males to be circumcised if he wanted them to be?

Glacier, I'm not defending Islam. The Abrahamic religions are inherently oppressive because they're patriarchal, with a god at the top who punishes. And I think arguing which religion of the two has been the bloodiest misses the point. They've both been worse than the other major world religions combined.

[zzontar]

Some cultures consider it to be mutilation to cut your hair, after all it grows long naturally so isn't that the way it's supposed to look?

[Graham Adder]

Some cultures consider it to be mutilation to cut your hair, after all it grows long naturally so isn't that the way it's supposed to look?

living tissue is not the same as dead tissue
hair grows back

technically however, you are correct by definition
cutting hair is mutilating it

[Glacier]

Call it what you will, but there is a distinct difference between female genital mutilation and circumcision - both in terms of purpose and effect. The reason you cut the clitoris is to give men more power over women. If a particular culture is patriarchal, there is no way that they would mutilate male genitals becaue men are in charge.

Male genital mutilation did occur and still does in many parts of the world, and it's the reason there are 60 million blacks in the western world, but very few in the Arab world even though sub-saharan slaves were imported in even greater numbers into Arab countries than Western ones.

What they did was take a sickle and cleave off the both the penis and testicles in one fell swoop; a tin or wooden spigot was set into the erethra; and the wound was cauterized with boiling oil and a bandage. Unable to relieve himself, the victim suffered from intense pain for three days before the spigot and bandage were removed. If the suffer could then relieve himself he usually lived; if he could not, he was doomed to an agonizing death from a burst bladder. That my friends is genital mutilation designed to keep the man down.

[kibbs]

Hey I rock the happy helmet. Sure its mutilation. Whether jews did it originally for health or some weird ritual who knows .its not huge like female circumcision.It only diminishes sensitivity .But they say increases endurance.They don't do it automatically anymore its a choice.I had my boys done i think because i had a friend in school that had to get it done when he was 14 due to infection.Is that what the saw is for ?i thought it was for cutting something else.

[50-ish]

couldn't help be reminded of the case of david reimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

also, for those interested in weighing the pro's and cons through those who experienced it, there's a research document in this book beginning on page 45: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-IMk5TXEdWQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA45&dq=circumcision+and+sexual+pleasure&ots=wx_iJBXQDV&sig=yqd6PT4Hnm8ihrb2hbDr_wyEqQU#v=onepage&q=circumcision%20and%20sexual%20pleasure&f=false

[kibbs]

I think the quality of sex is determined by your other head.You don't miss what you have never known ,To each their own .If I had no Jewish influences at my kids births ,i would have left the choice to them.Later in life.I just hope they don't feel the need to hang weights from it to get it back.