German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Rat]

OK, I stand corrected. Nonetheless, I find parents' having their children's ears pierced at a young age quite distasteful. When a young teenager begs their parents to allow them to have their ears pierced, I'm happy to leave that to the parents. Similarly, if fourteen-year-old boys are begging their parents to let them go for circumcision, I'd be much more comfortable with that than imposing it on them as babies.

 

[Megalodon]

Somehow I think people would be up in arms if someone decided to have their babies genitally pierced. Or have their nipples pierced.

And I think there would be a big overlap with people that don't mind circumcision.

 

[jdp]

That overlap always exists they'll just say "it's different".

 

[rustypouch]

Kind of. I had my ears pierced as a teenager, but discovered I was allergic to most earrings so I stopped wearing them. The holes have closed up but there is still a tiny amount of scar tissue where the holes were.

In any case, circumcision would be more analogous to surgically removing a child's earlobes than piercing their ears,

Plus that would reduce the chance of getting frostbite later in life...

 

[sadhatter]

The intact skin which existed before my daughters got their ears pierced (well before the age of consent) was also a functional body part. Is it your position that I should be tried for mutilating my daughters?

Unless you made the ear piercing permanent somehow no. I still think that you made a poor decision, unless your daughters were of an age where they could make a reasoned decision of if they want to go through that kind of pain for aesthetic reasons, but arrested, not so much, an ear piercing can be removed, and that bit of skin, is not a functional part, it does nothing to the ear to puncture it, ( if you gave your child large hoops to the extent they wouldn't heal, yes i would say arrest you in a minute.) and even worst case scenario, in a modern environment, a piercing infection causes nothing more than some discomfort.

Seriously, your anatomical knowledge is seriously lacking when you don't know what "Functional" means in regards to a body part, and how a pierced ear would differ from complete removal of a piece of skin.

A better analogy would be to remove the earlobe, and in that case, again, yes you should be arrested.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Somehow I think people would be up in arms if someone decided to have their babies genitally pierced. Or have their nipples pierced.

And I think there would be a big overlap with people that don't mind circumcision.

 

[sadhatter]

Thanks for that content-free analogy.

If you'd like to actually address some flaw in my statement, rather than merely implying that one exists, I'll be here all week.

I am implying nothing i was stating it outright and clearly. In case i was unclear, here is a simplified version of what i was saying.

Your knowledge of anatomy is lacking in such a large way , that your opinion is hard to take seriously. And if you wish for said opinion to have weight, you may want to do further reading in regards to human anatomy.

My reason for thinking this is you compared a viral lesion with a functioning part of the anatomy, and had no idea a mole was a tumor. To someone with a basic knowledge of human anatomy, this is a rather large mistake for someone to make, akin to the analogy i used.

 

[Megalodon]

What seems to be so amusing?

 

[sarge]

Heh, in my experience the normal order was never seeing anyone else's penis. And all the women I hear talk about how penises are either funny looking or ugly. Which kinda confuses me. Is that just talk, or are they actually lesbians ?

Really? We showered after gym class starting in Junior High School. Our showers were communal, and seeing each other naked was unavoidable. I spent 25 years in the Army as well. I'd wager that every person to ever serve in the US Army (and probably the Navy and Marine Corps as well) was commonly presented with other guys junk. I've seen miles of pork, and the circumcision rate has to be well over 90%.

It's funny, the naming convention in the smut corners I've been is to call porn with intact guys "Euro".

That makes sense.

I've actually heard it expressed that the "best" is cutting off the maximum amount ("tight"). Of course, too much and you end up with a problem...

Again, it never occured to me that mine wasn't the norm. Actually, this entire line of discussion has never occured to me. Upon reflection, I argue that my circumstance is perfect. I am cut, but have enough left intact to perform perfectly well without need for outside intervention - no dry spanking for me, thank you.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Really? We showered after gym class starting in Junior High School. Our showers were communal, and seeing each other naked was unavoidable. I spent 25 years in the Army as well. I'd wager that every person to ever serve in the US Army (and probably the Navy and Marine Corps as well) was commonly presented with other guys junk. I've seen miles of pork, and the circumcision rate has to be well over 90%.

I remember I got into a bit of a tiff over this before, but in the schools in my area the showers were only used by the sports players, much to the teasing from the rest of us. I think it is a generational thing, because the teachers often told stories about how they had to do swim class nekkid. Or it could be about funding/time, because there were only four shower heads and way too many students .

Communal showers --the awkward rite of passage into puberty --are a thing of the past. In fact, Oregon schools haven't required showers for at least a decade. The same is true nationally.

Students say they don't have time to shower. Psychologists and educators say kids also are more sensitive about body image partly because they live in a world saturated by the media's idea of perfection.

Linky.

Changing clothes without removing undergarments was horrifying enough for me!

That makes sense.

Well, it does until you find Euro Japanese pr0n .

Again, it never occured to me that mine wasn't the norm. Actually, this entire line of discussion has never occured to me. Upon reflection, I argue that my circumstance is perfect. I am cut, but have enough left intact to perform perfectly well without need for outside intervention - no dry spanking for me, thank you.

Tooting your own horn, eh?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What seems to be so amusing?

Amusing as in "that's awesome", not the snarky laugh!

 

[zeggman]

I am implying nothing i was stating it outright and clearly. In case i was unclear, here is a simplified version of what i was saying.

Your knowledge of anatomy is lacking in such a large way , that your opinion is hard to take seriously. And if you wish for said opinion to have weight, you may want to do further reading in regards to human anatomy.

My reason for thinking this is you compared a viral lesion with a functioning part of the anatomy, and had no idea a mole was a tumor. To someone with a basic knowledge of human anatomy, this is a rather large mistake for someone to make, akin to the analogy i used.

My understanding of anatomy is just fine, thank you.

The reason a wart ("viral lesion") is comparable to a "functioning part of the anatomy" is because a common wart ("viral lesion") is a "functioning part of the anatomy." It is benign, keeps body fluids in and infectious agents out, just like any other piece of skin.

I did not deny that a mole is a "tumor" so your claim that I had no idea a mole was a tumor is without basis. I believe the only reason anyone on this thread would choose to call a mole a tumor is to imply that there is some medical reason to remove it, when (as with the common wart) there is not. It is a piece of skin, and leaving it right where it is will not threaten the health of the person who has the mole or the wart.

Since the point I was making (that there is no medical reason to remove a wart, a mole, or a foreskin) is not invalidated by the emotional terms you prefer, perhaps it is you who would benefit from further instruction in anatomy.

 

[Megalodon]

Amusing as in "that's awesome", not the snarky laugh!

Thank you.

 

[Megalodon]

Since you changed your position I wasn't going to pursue this, but for the sake of argument...

The reason a wart ("viral lesion") is comparable to a "functioning part of the anatomy" is because a common wart ("viral lesion") is a "functioning part of the anatomy." It is benign, keeps body fluids in and infectious agents out, just like any other piece of skin.

No, a wart is more sensitive to temperature and pain than normal skin. Also they are more vulnerable to hemorrhage. Warts spread through normal skin, and can contaminate other people. Warts are by no definition a "functioning part of the anatomy" because they are not part of the anatomy to begin with.

I believe the only reason anyone on this thread would choose to call a mole a tumor is to imply that there is some medical reason to remove it, when (as with the common wart) there is not.

The only reason I chose to call a mole a tumor is because it is a tumor. It is not a normal, functioning part of the anatomy. It's an abnormal growth, it has no purpose and in extremis it can kill you.

It is a piece of skin, and leaving it right where it is will not threaten the health of the person who has the mole or the wart.

They are not a piece of skin, and that's just reality.

Since the point I was making (that there is no medical reason to remove a wart, a mole, or a foreskin) is not invalidated by the emotional terms you prefer, perhaps it is you who would benefit from further instruction in anatomy.

The point you were making swings both ways, and that's why I reacted to it. You can't compare the removal of a functioning, useful part of the anatomy with the removal of abnormal skin lesions. It cheapens the damage that circumcision does, and it opens the door to the argument that then it doesn't really matter if you do it or not.

I have less use for one of my toes (or even fingers) than I have for my foreskin, but nobody in their right mind would compare removing a finger to removing a mole, or a wart...

 

[brazenlilraisin]

I have less use for one of my toes (or even fingers) than I have for my foreskin [!!], but nobody in their right mind would compare removing a finger to removing a mole, or a wart...

Indeed nobody in their right mind would. Indeed, indeed.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

If post #254 doesn't convince the neutral observer that this subject is not being argued rationally by rational arguers, I guess nothing will.

 

[jdp]

If post #254 doesn't convince the neutral observer that this subject is not being argued rationally by rational arguers, I guess nothing will.

You make it sound as if there's been a raft of posts (arguments) that were irrational. I might be curious to know which fingers or toes but it is his opinion. It sounds to me that he simply values his foreskin, what's wrong with that?

 

[mijopaalmc]

To some of us, that's actually true..

I've met many young girls who thought some sort of lubrication was required for boys to masturbate, because it's often referred to in American movies. They're surprised that this doesn't apply to Norwegian boys, and that they can just grab it and have their fun without any form of preparation..

You do realize that pre-ejaculate is produce by internal glands in the reproductive tract?

I had sex with several circumcised men who lubricated just fine.

 

[Ryokan]

You do realize that pre-ejaculate is produce by internal glands in the reproductive tract?

I had sex with several circumcised men who lubricated just fine.

I do realize that (I got a penis of my own.), but it doesn't spontaneously come out in a big enough dose the second you feel like masturbating.

Why this big attempt by people (Not targeting you, mijipaalmc, just talking in general.) to deny that circumcised men often use lubrication to masturbate? I'll admit my initial knowledge on how circumcised men masturbate comes from American pop culture, but a quick google of 'masturbation circumcised' seems to confirm it.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I do realize that (I got a penis of my own.), but it doesn't spontaneously come out in a big enough dose the second you feel like masturbating.

Why this big attempt by people (Not targeting you, mijipaalmc, just talking in general.) to deny that circumcised men often use lubrication to masturbate? I'll admit my initial knowledge on how circumcised men masturbate comes from American pop culture, but a quick google of 'masturbation circumcised' seems to confirm it.

I don't deny it. In fact, I'm one of those men who likes to use a lot* of lubrication when I masturbate. However, I have also personally experienced other men who prefer to use no (extra)** lubrication when they masturbate, so I don't see the connection between the collection of pre-ejeculate in the prepuce and heightened pleasure during masturbation.

The application of lubrication during masturbation strikes me more as personal preference than anything pertaining directly to circumcision.

*As in, I have only seen one man produce enough to come close to satisfying it

**Most of my male sexual partners don't pre-ejaculate at all, so artificial lubricant is required if any lubrication is desired.