Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Should male circumcision be illegal?

POST REPLY

Should male circumcision be illegal?

Yes
18
47%
No
19
50%
Other
1
3%
 
Total votes : 38
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 13 Mar 2012, 18:09
Should parents be prohibited from circumcising their male babies?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 13 Mar 2012, 19:55
Yes.
Most of them do it for religious reasons.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 13 Mar 2012, 23:37
No and most do it for cultural reasons not because God said to. America for instance is almost entirely circumcised while Euro Christians are still afraid of having Jewish penises.


Really though no it's just a cultural tradition that causes no harm.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1201
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2008, 14:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Mar 2012, 04:44
Hell, I was raised Catholic, which frowns upon circumcision, but I was circumcised anyway for reasons of hygiene. It's not hurting anyone, and it is a religious prescription in a lot of cases, so illegalizing it isn't very constructive.
Image


Forum Rules

Red_Son: Bob Avakian is the Glenn Beck of communism.
"Le prolétariat; c'est moi." - King Indigo XIV
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 04:54
It's just one more of these idealistic premises of banning supposedly bad things. When the consensus is against circumcision it will end. The masses can be trusted to decide this for themselves without the decree of biased individuals.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 172
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Feb 2012, 16:12
Ideology: Left Communism
Pioneer
Post 14 Mar 2012, 04:58
I'm against banning it.

Unlike FGM, male circumcision doesn't mutilate the man (in fact, doctors report that the glans actually gets bigger). Circumcised men can function sexually, experience sexual pleasure and orgasm normally. It's a tribal hygienic practice, done to prevent balanoposthitis and phymosis, which are less treatable in adults. While being circumcised is inconvenient to masturbate, it's not something that regular "El Cheapo" lubricant can't fix.

Circumcision is actually the standard treatment for phymosis: Many cultures practice infant circumcision 'cause phymosis is, let's say, inconvenient... And it's a bitch to treat in adults, 'cause the surgery heals much quicker in infants.

Suppressing the practice won't give any real benefit: The only thing it would achieve is pissing off people whose cultures practice it, probably in a big way. Pissing off Jews, Muslims, Americans, all sorts of "tribals"... for little gain (if any) doesn't look like smart policy.
Last edited by KlassWar on 14 Mar 2012, 05:39, edited 1 time in total.
Cm'on baby, eat the rich!!! - Motörhead
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 14 Mar 2012, 05:36
No

It has been done for centuries. If people want circumcision for their children then let them take it. If it is done properly there is no harm and some people even go for it later in life if they have a health or medical reason.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2011, 08:59
Ideology: Other
Komsomol
Post 14 Mar 2012, 19:30
I voted Yes, vehemently.

I was circumcised after birth for religious/hygiene/aesthetic reasons. This decision was made against my will, and serves no purpose except as a desensitizing of the glands to discourage masturbation. This works two fold, it not only makes masturbation less fulfilling, but also intercourse as well. It's not a matter of lubrication, it is a neurological symptom of circumcision that is desired by the religious to persuade against self pleasure and pleasure through intercourse. Both are seen as sins, thus making it a justifiable operation to them.

If it is allowed to be optional, I think it should be the choice of the person the operation is being done on, not the parents.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 21:24
That's bullshit through and through. Ancient Jews did not conceive of sex as an evil thing to be repressed (well not for men anyways). You're attempting to force Christian values on a group that believed completely different things. Also the idea that it is unpleasureable to masturbate (even dry) or have sex with a circumcision is the most idiotic part of this spiel. Do you know what it is like to have a hood? No you don't and your brain is wired different than any person that does.

Circumcised men who talk about the horrible injustice of it are ridiculous.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 14 Mar 2012, 21:42
Dagoth, I don't understand your logic. Why are you so concerned about ideas of "consent" and how a male animal cannot consent to having sex with a human female, yet you do not seem to carry these principles over to a HUMAN infant (that one day will become a consenting adult) in terms of a much more painful, invasive, and lasting procedure?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:13
It's way less painful for an infant, everything is.tHetting pushed out of a birth canal seems like it would hurt super bad. Also I didn't say an animal cannot consent but that we cannot verify consent. That was the crux of my argument. The effects of circumcision for most people are the only way they know how to feel, and their brain growth shows this, so nothing is truly lost.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:15
Voted no, vehemently.

I'm also currently considering getting circumcised. The procedure seems to have only benefits. Sex is never "fulfilling", Markius. It's just overrated and having a foreskin doesn't make it any better.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:20
Dagoth Ur wrote:
It's way less painful for an infant, everything is.tHetting pushed out of a birth canal seems like it would hurt super bad. Also I didn't say an animal cannot consent but that we cannot verify consent. That was the crux of my argument. The effects of circumcision for most people are the only way they know how to feel, and their brain growth shows this, so nothing is truly lost.


You are assuming everything is less painful for an infant, but there is actually very little scientific data to back this up. We just like to think this way because the infant cannot communicate its pain, and will not remember it in its adult life (although Freud would contest that).

We also cannot verify consent in a human infant. What is the difference?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:24
That I don't really care about coercion when it leads to positive (or at least non-negative) results. Rape is only bad because it causes far more harm than good not out of a principal that humans "deserve" to not be raped.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:25
I don't even know why anybody would think that anything is less painful for infants. I'd assume the reverse. They cry all the time, forgotten? And not just shed a tear or two, they cry REAL HARD. I'm pretty sure that it sucks really hard to be a baby because everything hurts all the time and you have no idea what to do about it.

AND CONSENT IS IRRELEVANT ARGH WHY DOES NOBODY EVER LISTEN TO ME
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:26
Dagoth Ur wrote:
That I don't really care about coercion when it leads to positive (or at least non-negative) results. Rape is only bad because it causes far more harm than good not out of a principal that humans "deserve" to not be raped.


What harm comes out of a male animal mounting a female, having sex with her, and having an orgasm? I don't think I follow. Certainly less harm that the risks associated with circumcision.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:29
Infants have no ideas. Pain is far too esoteric a concept for an infant. They cry because they don't know how to do anything else. And even if they do feel pain it's not like anyone remebers it or is really harmed by it.

@khlib: you can't say it isn't harmful to a dog's mind to frag a human ( although I doubt it is). Circumcision has lead to normal men who act just like uncircumcised men.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:39
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Infants have no ideas. Pain is far too esoteric a concept for an infant. They cry because they don't know how to do anything else. And even if they do feel pain it's not like anyone remebers it or is really harmed by it.

@khlib: you can't say it isn't harmful to a dog's mind to frag a human ( although I doubt it is). Circumcision has lead to normal men who act just like uncircumcised men.


You can make the exact same argument about animals and pain.

"In his studies on how animals perceive time, animal cognition researcher William Roberts made some remarkable conclusions regarding animal memories, anticipation and more. He says that animals are "stuck in time" [source: Roberts]. By this he means that, without the sophisticated abilities it takes to perceive time -- like truly forming memories -- animals only live in the present. Roberts thinks animals are "stuck in time" because they can't mentally "time travel" backward and forward. Humans can consciously and willfully think back to specific memories and anticipate events. Animals cannot."

If a dog that has had sex with humans still behaves like a dog that hasn't had sex with humans, I really don't understand your point.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:47
Quote:
Infants have no ideas. Pain is far too esoteric a concept for an infant. They cry because they don't know how to do anything else. And even if they do feel pain it's not like anyone remebers it or is really harmed by it.


That's disturbing, dude. There are some things/concepts that all animals of a certain complexity are hard-wired to grasp, such as pain, sex and hunger. Not EVERYTHING is socially determined. Babies cry because of discomfort. Let me guess, you've never had little siblings?

Also the baby is harmed when it feels pain because pain is harm. Why should it matter whether anybody remembers it? With that logic you could say that it's perfectly okay to punch me in the face right now because there isn't gonna be any harm ... except for some pain. Harm and pain/discomfort/human disapproval are pretty much the same thing. We define what harm is, and a baby's pain is just as bad as an adult's pain.

Quote:
Roberts thinks animals are "stuck in time" because they can't mentally "time travel" backward and forward. Humans can consciously and willfully think back to specific memories and anticipate events. Animals cannot."


Even if it were that simple (I'm pretty sure that dogs and cats can remember specific people and make simple plans), trauma and memory are two different things. Rape a two-year old and look at her sexuality 20 years later. She's gonna be screwed up and have no idea why.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 14 Mar 2012, 22:53
That doesn't hold. A beaten dog knows the signs of a coming beating. In the exact same sense a dog has to be trained to understand the signs of a human being down. Now I'm sure occasionally a dog takes it upon himself but most dogs require training. While they may not be able to recall on a whim they still have past memories and they effect their psychological growth and behavior. Circumcision has seemingly no effect on pyschological growth or behavior and if you could prove the same of interspecies sex on those particular animals then I feel that'd be a fair justification for it.

@mabool: yeah I have younger siblings and younger cousins and nieces, all whom I've known since infancy. Crying is a newborn's only emotional reaction to anything and everything. I'm not trying to dismiss the pain they feel but it is categorically different from the way we intellectualize pain.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.