German court bans circumcision of young boys

RemieV said:
In all those examples, the term existed with a negative connotation first, and was later reappropriated by members of the actual groups in order to deprive the term of its meaning.

Circumcision as mutilation doesn't fit in that grouping.
Click to expand...

Sorry, just realized that my above quote probably didn't contain all of what I was saying -

Therefore, the term 'mutilation' for circumcision is not, and cannot, be considered bigoted when compared to the other terms. Those actually were bigoted terms, and were developed with the intention of disparaging whole groups - whereas referring to circumcision as a mutilation is more along the line of a realization that it fits the criteria.
 
RemieV said:
Sorry, just realized that my above quote probably didn't contain all of what I was saying -

Therefore, the term 'mutilation' for circumcision is not, and cannot, be considered bigoted when compared to the other terms. Those actually were bigoted terms, and were developed with the intention of disparaging whole groups - whereas referring to circumcision as a mutilation is more along the line of a realization that it fits the criteria.
Click to expand...

The movement against consensual and non-consensual female genital mutilation worked to have the term changed from "female circumcision" because using the word "circumcision" carried a lot of cultural baggage (in the countries that it is common for males to be circumcised) because of the generally unquestioned assumption that circumcision was OK, was something minor and so on.
 
zeggman said:
I consider myself somewhat more informed on the subject of male circumcision, since I am circumcised myself. I do not consider it a mutilation, and prefer not to be characterised as "mutilated."
Click to expand...

Who cares whether you think it is mutilation or not, a rape victim claiming they will not be made a victim doesn't change the fact they were raped and it would be rather insulting if they told other victims they are physically fine so they should get over it.
 
mutile said:
Who cares whether you think it is mutilation or not, a rape victim claiming they will not be made a victim doesn't change the fact they were raped and it would be rather insulting if they told other victims they are physically fine so they should get over it.
Click to expand...

That isn't really fair. Unless I am mistaken, Zeggman has said that he essentially accepts the judgment of other men's evaluation of their own situation but only for him, he doesn't feel it's mutilation; which is fine. I also have to credit him for coming around on the matter where it relates to infant/child circumcision. I guess the question here is, can we objectively define circumcision as mutilation? I think we can. That doesn't mean that others won't feel it is mutilation. There are women who don't feel whatever FGM they got was mutilation like these women --



And people who are ritually scared, branded, tattooed, or whatever may feel similarly. As a technical matter it may be a mutilation but we don't have to force them to believe that, it's counter productive.
 
Last edited:
mutile said:
Who cares whether you think it is mutilation or not, a rape victim claiming they will not be made a victim doesn't change the fact they were raped and it would be rather insulting if they told other victims they are physically fine so they should get over it.
Click to expand...
Okay, you've made a liar out of me. My last word on the subject in this forum will be "banned" because I will not be silenced by a howling mob which wants to imply, much less state outright, that there is ANYTHING AT ALL unaesthetic about my appearance.

Who cares? I care. Because words have meaning, and I am not mutilated, I will continue to speak up against the frothing foreskin fetishists who insist it's their right to lie about and disparage something they've never even seen.

I'm beautiful, baby. I'm proud of my appearance. That "mutilated" thing you're imagining is all in your head, and bears not even a passing resemblence to my beautiful sleek slab of man meat.

I've decided it's more important to let parents make decisions about their own children than that screeching hordes of liars be allowed to make those decisions for them.

If they want their children to grow up in the country rather than in the city, it's their choice. If they want to teach them how to hunt and fish, or how to edit symphonies on a computer, it's their choice. If they want to let them grow fat and lethargic on Captain Crunch and Mountain Dew, or grow bitter and resentful as they're groomed for Olympic competition and spelling bees, it's their choice. I proudly endorse the diversity and liberty which a society of free individuals has built and continues to build. Where circumcised and uncircumcised schoolboys can shower proudly together, without judgment or shame, because WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!

If parents want their boys to grow up circumcised or intact, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. Not yours, not jdp's not Darat's, not Megalodon's, and certainly not mine. I don't expect your brand of nanny tyranny will get much traction in the United States, but I resolve here and now to oppose it with every resource at my disposal.

I am not a mutilated man who will be shamed into silence by the collective ignorance of the envious and the inadequate. I'll stand proud, in all my streamlined glory, for the rights of free and independent parents to raise their children as they see fit.
 
jdp said:
I also have to credit him for coming around on the matter where it relates to infant/child circumcision.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I've gone full circle now. I think the bullying tactics which are being employed here are more dangerous to a free and open society than the question of whether or not Little Johnny grows up with his foreskin.

I honestly think calling me mutilated is an attempt to shame me into silence, and I have NOTHING to be ashamed of. I'm proud of my appearance, and ecstatic at the sexual pleasure which I experience. To anyone who says his johnson gives him more pleasure than mine gives me, I say "prove it."
 
zeggman said:
Sorry, I've gone full circle now. I think the bullying tactics which are being employed here are more dangerous to a free and open society than the question of whether or not Little Johnny grows up with his foreskin.

I honestly think calling me mutilated is an attempt to shame me into silence, and I have NOTHING to be ashamed of. I'm proud of my appearance, and ecstatic at the sexual pleasure which I experience. To anyone who says his johnson gives him more pleasure than mine gives me, I say "prove it."
Click to expand...

I am sorry but I don't see where the bullying is; at least from me. I am willing to accept that circumcised men are satisfied and happy with their state. I am willing to accept the same for circumcised women, those who were branded or scared for ritual and tribal purposes. That doesn't change my perspective on it though. And all that I want to know is why we are so quick to call such things mutilation but make an exception for circumcision, men only.

zeggman said:
I am not a mutilated man who will be shamed into silence by the collective ignorance of the envious and the inadequate. I'll stand proud, in all my streamlined glory, for the rights of free and independent parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Click to expand...

No one is trying to shame you, we are only trying to discuss this curious double standard and (at least I) would like to see the practice eliminated. Parents are free to raise their children as they see fit but we do limit even things which are arguably less damaging to do, why? Can't we discuss that without drama?
 
zeggman said:
Okay, you've made a liar out of me. My last word on the subject in this forum will be "banned" because I will not be silenced by a howling mob which wants to imply, much less state outright, that there is ANYTHING AT ALL unaesthetic about my appearance.

Who cares? I care. Because words have meaning, and I am not mutilated, I will continue to speak up against the frothing foreskin fetishists who insist it's their right to lie about and disparage something they've never even seen.

I'm beautiful, baby. I'm proud of my appearance. That "mutilated" thing you're imagining is all in your head, and bears not even a passing resemblence to my beautiful sleek slab of man meat.

I've decided it's more important to let parents make decisions about their own children than that screeching hordes of liars be allowed to make those decisions for them.

If they want their children to grow up in the country rather than in the city, it's their choice. If they want to teach them how to hunt and fish, or how to edit symphonies on a computer, it's their choice. If they want to let them grow fat and lethargic on Captain Crunch and Mountain Dew, or grow bitter and resentful as they're groomed for Olympic competition and spelling bees, it's their choice. I proudly endorse the diversity and liberty which a society of free individuals has built and continues to build. Where circumcised and uncircumcised schoolboys can shower proudly together, without judgment or shame, because WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!

If parents want their boys to grow up circumcised or intact, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. Not yours, not jdp's not Darat's, not Megalodon's, and certainly not mine. I don't expect your brand of nanny tyranny will get much traction in the United States, but I resolve here and now to oppose it with every resource at my disposal.

I am not a mutilated man who will be shamed into silence by the collective ignorance of the envious and the inadequate. I'll stand proud, in all my streamlined glory, for the rights of free and independent parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Click to expand...

that includes female circumcision, right?
 
jdp said:
I am sorry but I don't see where the bullying is; at least from me. I am willing to accept that circumcised men are satisfied and happy with their state. I am willing to accept the same for circumcised women, those who were branded or scared for ritual and tribal purposes. That doesn't change my perspective on it though. And all that I want to know is why we are so quick to call such things mutilation but make an exception for circumcision, men only.
Click to expand...
I agree, the bullying didn't come from you.

I would call clitoridectomy mutilation, just as I would call castration mutilation. At this point, seeing the hysterical language employed to describe something so matter-of-fact as my circumcision, I'm inclined to think that the same thing may have happened with women, and that some things are being labeled "mutilation" by people with an agenda which don't really merit the term.

jdp said:
No one is trying to shame you, we are only trying to discuss this curious double standard and (at least I) would like to see the practice eliminated. Parents are free to raise their children as they see fit but we do limit even things which are arguably less damaging to do, why? Can't we discuss that without drama?
Click to expand...
I don't know if we can. I'm happy to engage in a calm discussion of circumcision, but if people want to employ emotional language like "mutilated" I think they're the ones who are dragging drama to the table.
 
zeggman said:
I am not a mutilated man who will be shamed into silence by the collective ignorance of the envious and the inadequate. I'll stand proud, in all my streamlined glory, for the rights of free and independent parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Click to expand...

Some parents see fit to sexually molest their children. Is that okay?
 
Checkmite said:
Some parents see fit to sexually molest their children. Is that okay?
Click to expand...
No penetration. They should be free to bathe their children's genitals without fear of incarceration, up until the age at which the children can bathe themselves.
 
zeggman said:
No penetration. They should be free to bathe their children's genitals without fear of incarceration, up until the age at which the children can bathe themselves.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. Is it okay for parents to sexually molest their children if that's how they choose to raise them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom