It's always going to be about regret. I regret not knowing how it would be like to be uncircumcised, and others will regret needing to get circumcision surgery when it will suck much more as an adult. Here's the difference. They can make a conscious decision to get circumcised, and I couldn't.
My male kids will be uncut.
To sum this thread up:
Cut dicks are white chocolate. Uncut ones are black chocolate.
... This is RACIST. But then again: Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.
On topic:
I don't think the OP wanted to start a discussion, if circumcision per se is good or bad, but if circumcision without consent of the person concerned should be allowed.
I am going to assume that we have a consent regarding female circumcision as being an evil act of torture, without any reason behind it whatsoever and therefore should be considered not an option when- and wherever.
Male circumcision on the other hand usually doesn't come along with livelong and painful consequences if done properly. Well, it does have livelong consequences, but it's not a major concern for most.
I really like the verdict of the german court, because it is very consistent in its application of german penal law as it is. Broken down to the base line: If a qualified person (i.e. a doctor) performs surgery in any kind or form, that isn't done in consent with the patient, commits a criminal assault.
There are exceptions to this baseline:
- If the patient is incapable of articulating his will, the doctor has the obligation to determine the supposed will of the patient. This obligation shrinks (in some cases to zero), if there is some kind of emergency at hand, where there is no time to determine the patients potential will.
- This of course doesn't apply to most cases of circumcision done at a very young age. It's usually done due to religious beliefs of the parents (where I live, I know that it's almost a standard procedure in other countries). The parents replaced the needed permission of the patient by giving their permission.
The verdict ruled out that permission as invalid, because the parents have no right to "harm" their child or give permission to "harm" their child, if there is no medical need to do so. It's just consistent.
Of course the judges were well aware of what they were going to kick off, but they probably just thought "let's watch the trainwreck unfold". I am kidding. They were well aware of the problem and gave the politicians a serious task to solve the problem and stop the current situation, where medical staff was working in a gray area for so many years.
Everything else without a proper bill that says "circumcision of male people without consent is legal, as long as the legal guardian gave his permission in written form and the person concerned isn't above the age of 6 months" or something would always leave that mumbojumbo gray area wide open. This ain't helpful.
tl;dr: Good verdict. It's up to the politicians now.
Which will end up in a law legalizing circumcision (Angie already has her mouth full with the, circumcised lol, cocks of jewish and muslim interest groups so I frankly can't see it ending any other way) which will instantly be appealed to the BVerfG (our constitutional court) which will then decide the juicy bit:Originally Posted by GiDiYi
Weighing the right of the child to bodily integrity versus religious freedom of the parents.
Because if it wasn't for the religious aspect (exacerbated by playing the Holocaust card by some Jewish groups), nobody would have given a fuck about it in the first place.
My family is catholic but I was born in nyc and delivered by a jewish doctor and so my weener didnt stand a chance.
I have no issues with being snipped, but I did spend some serious time wondering in my teens if I was missing out on something and even just wondering what I 'would' have looked like.
To be honest, apart from the religious reasons, I think kids should be able to decide for themselves once they grow up. I do know adults who have decided to have the snip for aesthetic and practical reasons and had no regrets afterwards.
That's quite right. However, it's worth covering circumcision in its own right in order to establish whether there is any overwhelming benefit or harm arising from it. Vaccinations inflict pain and are also applied shortly after birth without consent being given, but in that case the benefits for the individual and for society at large (via reduced transmission) are judged to outweigh the need for consent.
Many a true word is said in jest. That's more or less what I was thinking when I started this threadI really like the verdict of the german court, because it is very consistent in its application of german penal law as it is. Broken down to the base line: If a qualified person (i.e. a doctor) performs surgery in any kind or form, that isn't done in consent with the patient, commits a criminal assault.
There are exceptions to this baseline:
- If the patient is incapable of articulating his will, the doctor has the obligation to determine the supposed will of the patient. This obligation shrinks (in some cases to zero), if there is some kind of emergency at hand, where there is no time to determine the patients potential will.
- This of course doesn't apply to most cases of circumcision done at a very young age. It's usually done due to religious beliefs of the parents (where I live, I know that it's almost a standard procedure in other countries). The parents replaced the needed permission of the patient by giving their permission.
The verdict ruled out that permission as invalid, because the parents have no right to "harm" their child or give permission to "harm" their child, if there is no medical need to do so. It's just consistent.
Of course the judges were well aware of what they were going to kick off, but they probably just thought "let's watch the trainwreck unfold". I am kidding.
That leads on quite nicely to the next question: is it morally right for the politicians to declare this practice legal?They were well aware of the problem and gave the politicians a serious task to solve the problem and stop the current situation, where medical staff was working in a gray area for so many years.
Everything else without a proper bill that says "circumcision of male people without consent is legal, as long as the legal guardian gave his permission in written form and the person concerned isn't above the age of 6 months" or something would always leave that mumbojumbo gray area wide open. This ain't helpful.
tl;dr: Good verdict. It's up to the politicians now.
Military personnel deployed in active combat? I've got a picture of a set of MARPAT that's standing on it's own, no human attached, and it's not because the military creases are that good.
I'm not suggesting it's a gotta have, but there are situations in the world where people don't get to shower every day. We address the "western world" but forget that there are homeless who don't shower, military deployed who can't, hell even people who hike the AT who are otherwise normal citizens don't usually shower but maybe every other week if they're extremely lucky.
I really don't give very many shits on the subject, my rocket ship makes sex feel great, I lack anything to compare it to, but sex is still amazing. I don't see any reason why it's a subject of debate though, some people like it, some people don't. I see no reason why it should be outlawed, more of just a choice.
This is indeed the next step to the answer of the question at hand and I think that zergl summed up the decicsive factors to come up with a solution quite nicely:
I'd sum up my mindset as a liberal atheist (i.e. dirty european communist for some Amurrikans).
Therefore I think that every decision with a permanent consequence should be left to the person concerned if feasible. In the case of a circumcision we have a permanent, albeit small, consequence. It is feasible to wait until the person concerned can decide on his own. Arguments against this are not really convincing in my opinion.
So far I've seen the following:
1. By doing it at a very young age, the person is spared a lot of pain.
2. It is a question of better hygiene. Sooner is better than later.
3. Uhm, I can't think of any other arguments at the moment.
My answers are:
1. Nonsense. The pain is there for the baby as well. I can't really remember the pain I had when I broke my collarbone at the age of 16, too. So what?
2. Nonsense as well. Unless you plan to live with your kid alone in the jungle until he's grown up, any shower in a somewhat civilized area solves any potential problems as well.
What goes in favor of an early circumcision? I can't really think of anything else in an objective manner.
Well, there might be the hope of religious parents to predetermine the fate of their son by doing it properly from the get go. I'd like to have some insight by people with some knowledge of Jewish or Muslim religion. Is it an actual obligation to be circumcised? I don't have no clue about this. Sacul?
My understanding is that in the more orthodox branches of some faiths and cultures it's required within one week of birth in order for the individual to be considered part of the community, hence the strong desire of parents to circumcise their children (well before they can possibly consent). In Roots by Alex Haley there's also an account of circumcision playing a part in ancient Gambian rituals marking coming of age - apparently without the explicit consent of those involved (though, equally, with no mention of anyone trying to avoid it).
And so you have some people complaining that this denies free practice of religion, and other people complaining that Germany's past is being used as an excuse to deny a sincere concern for the rights of the individual, held by a democratic majority. Is there a way out of this conundrum?
Speaking of more orthodox branches of some faiths (and going a bit off on a tangent), even where clinical circumcision done by medical professionals is available, some ultra-orthodox Jews insist in doing it ye olde way with the mohel sucking the blood from the wound with his mouth. Remember: It's all fun and games until an infant dies of Herpes.
I'm of two minds when it comes to this subject.
From a purely logical point of view, there's nothing that suggests it's needed. Having a foreskin doesn't inhibit you in any way. Being circumsised does carry risks. If you take that as read, it's a "bad thing". I define "bad thing" as something in which the cons out-weigh the pros.
Is it "easier" - well, yes. But is maintaining "health" with a foreskin difficult? No.
I've considered getting circumsised myself but decided against it.
My partner is circumsised. He's from Indonesia but is catholic - it wasn't done for religious reasons but purely because "everyone else does" (Indo has the largest muslim population on the planet). A bit like America and Australia really - it's done because "it's done".
There's no need for it, but there's very little harm in it being done in a controlled environment (i.e. hospital).
Whatever. I think it's cruel to do it to a baby, I think it's unnecessary. It's NOT the same as "female circumcision" which is the removal of the clitoris, but it DOES take away feeling and sensation - at least according to two of my friends who have been circumsised from late teen years.
Personal choice - my stance is that it should be left to the individual to decide.
Hello? Oh, hello! I'm sorry it's a very bad line. No, no no... but that's not possible, she was sealed in to the Seventh Obelisk after the prayer meeting. Well, no, I get that it's important... an Egyptian Goddess loose on the Orient Express. In Space. Give us a mo....
... don't worry about a thing, your Majesty; we're on our way.
That's not the first time I've heard that happening and frankly I can't understand why they do it - I'm not going to go all out and say they have a sexual desire that is the driving force behind the custom of sucking the penis of a baby but really, that sentence... I ... just typing it...Speaking of more orthodox branches of some faiths (and going a bit off on a tangent), even where clinical circumcision done by medical professionals is available, some ultra-orthodox Jews insist in doing it ye olde way with the mohel sucking the blood from the wound with his mouth. Remember: It's all fun and games until an infant dies of Herpes.
I'd like to believe there's more to it, culturally, but...
Yeah.
Stuff like that sh.. IS illegal, surely? I mean, it's an adult making contact to ...
huh?
Hello? Oh, hello! I'm sorry it's a very bad line. No, no no... but that's not possible, she was sealed in to the Seventh Obelisk after the prayer meeting. Well, no, I get that it's important... an Egyptian Goddess loose on the Orient Express. In Space. Give us a mo....
... don't worry about a thing, your Majesty; we're on our way.
Female Circumcision/Female Genital Mutilation is actually an umbrella term, ranging from "just" removing the clitoral hood (which is, frankly, roughly equivalent to male circumcision) or a ritual incision/nicking (without removal of tissue) over removal of the clitoris (worse than male circumcision) to the savage butchery that is removing pretty much everything and then sewing it up with only a tiny matchstick sized hole left to piss and menstruate out of (which is what I've associated with the term before reading up on it and hands down worse than male circumcision in pretty much every conceivable way) depending on the local ethnic background.It's NOT the same as "female circumcision" which is the removal of the clitoris
Have a WHO report about it.
But yeah, this should not be a gender issue and I think both male or female circumcision (regardless of type) on infants unable to give (or even against a child's or adult's) consent is equally wrong and should be illegal just the same.
If you want to have it done to yourself as a consenting adult, cool beans, but stay the fuck away from kid's genitals unless there is an actual medical indication that would necessitate it tbqfh.
Yeah, pretty much.huh?
Should only be done for medical reasons.
Im cut, I dont really care, but :shrug:
Your posting is medium, its not rare and its not well done
- Krans 26/7/12
Should only be done for medical reasons.
I'm cut, I kinda care, I resent my parents because of it.
Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.
By everyone? That sure is some sweeping generalisation right there.2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.
Indeed, but less awesome. Getting paid £1/year would still be getting paid, doesn't mean it's good.3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.
Except you no longer have a foreskin.4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.
Whats not to like?
That's the point though, at the moment it's not a choice, it's "you're stuck with what your parents decided". Which is wrong. It should only either be patient choice, or medical problem that allows circumcision.
Here is a link with pictures of penises, click at your own risk:
http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm
I'm basically a CI-3 or CI-4 depending on temperature, so I have no "ant-eater" as the pro-cut people are suggesting. And I get to wank without lube. I guess maybe I'd feel differently if I was the full on ant-eater at the bottom of the page, but tbh 3, 4, 5, 6 all look p fine to me.
CI-10 scares me
also
CI-3 checking in
Your posting is medium, its not rare and its not well done
- Krans 26/7/12
btw there's a few grades of female circumcision, some of which are horrifying.
However, there's a legit procedure where the clitoral hood is cut (top to bottom) or removed to provide access to the clit. It's sometimes recommended when your hood is too tight, or you have poor sexual response due to an especially thick hood. It's probably the least terrible of the options, and is vaguely analogous to male circumcision.
Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.
"You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."
1. You're probably right but it's WHOLE seconds of my life I'm saving! ZomgNot like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.
By everyone? That sure is some sweeping generalisation right there.2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.
Indeed, but less awesome. Getting paid £1/year would still be getting paid, doesn't mean it's good.3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.
Except you no longer have a foreskin.4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.
Whats not to like?
2. By the people that count anyway. Current gf left her last bf when she found out he was uncut. Couldn't deal with it lol.
3. You can't miss what you never had. Besides, most of the pleasure I get from sex derives from my girl's reactions to me not direct stimuli. You might say its all in the head.
4. So? I'm okay with that and like I said above, you can't miss what you never had.
LS6
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks