German court bans circumcision of young boys

zeggman said:
If there is no medical reason for it, then you should be persuading doctors and parents that the risks of complications make the procedure inadvisable.

Calling it "mutilation" after the fact doesn't do that. Calling it "dangerous and unnecessary" before the fact does.
Click to expand...

This, I actually agree with. However, I'd like to point out that talking about how much you personally love your own penis doesn't do much to help, either.

I said before that I don't care what words are used, I just abhor the practice of unnecessary ******** done to helpless newborn infants.
 
Ryokan said:
I read about all these horrible complications that can happen, about skin bridges and sunken penises and dysfunctional penises and all sorts of horrible things that can go wrong. Can you see if from where I'm sitting, why I would speak up against these practices?
Click to expand...
I completely understand. I support you. I think parents and doctors should be considering the potential risks against the potential benefits and that if they do so they will decide in most cases to forego having their children circumcised.
 
Fwiw, I think having your infants ears pierced is, without question a form of mutilation. In spite of this, I have my own ears pierced, many times. Mutilation and body modification are two sides of the same coin, if you'd like, but we use the negative term for the one we disapprove of. For the sake of this situation, people are not calling circumcision mutilationas an underhand way of calling your penis ugly, they use the word to bring attention to the very non-consensual manner in which this act is being done, similar to how I would call non consensual body piercings a form of mutilation, in spite ofpe rsonally rliking the lookof pierced ears. The negativity of the word is targeted toward the act of circumcision, not the result.
 
Checkmite said:
Come on, it can't be that difficult to answer this question.
Click to expand...
OMG Checkmite, you're relentless. You have me against the ropes, no doubt about it. You've grabbed my turgid achilles heel with both hands, and you just won't let go.

If I say "Yes" it means I think parents should be allowed to sexually abuse their children.

OTOH, if I say "No" it means I think parents SHOULDN'T be allowed to sexually abuse their children.

I JUST CAN'T WIN.

It's a conundrum, A paradox. A gasconade. What to do, what to do...

Ummmm, I'm going to say "no".

Yep, you got me good. "Checkmite", as they say.
 
Now we're getting somewhere. And why is sexual abuse of children generally considered a bad thing?
 
myowninvention said:
Fwiw, I think having your infants ears pierced is, without question a form of mutilation. In spite of this, I have my own ears pierced, many times. Mutilation and body modification are two sides of the same coin, if you'd like, but we use the negative term for the one we disapprove of. For the sake of this situation, people are not calling circumcision mutilationas an underhand way of calling your penis ugly, they use the word to bring attention to the very non-consensual manner in which this act is being done, similar to how I would call non consensual body piercings a form of mutilation, in spite ofpe rsonally rliking the lookof pierced ears. The negativity of the word is targeted toward the act of circumcision, not the result.
Click to expand...
Other people have attempted to make that argument, but I have yet to see a dictionary that agrees that "mutilation" implies "non-consensual", whereas every dictionary I've seen agrees that mutilation implies disfigurement.

If someone wanted to emphasize that my circumcision (or anyone's) was non-consensual, and used the term "non-consensual circumcision" they wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.
 
Checkmite said:
Would you say "because it harms children" is a fair summary?
Click to expand...
Why, now that you mention it, yes. Your astuteness is astonishing. No wait, astounding. Astonishing.

I hope that isn't just the vertigo talking.
 
zeggman said:
Other people have attempted to make that argument, but I have yet to see a dictionary that agrees that "mutilation" implies "non-consensual", whereas every dictionary I've seen agrees that mutilation implies disfigurement.

If someone wanted to emphasize that my circumcision (or anyone's) was non-consensual, and used the term "non-consensual circumcision" they wouldn't have heard a peep out of me.
Click to expand...
No, I know, the definition of mutilation has been gone over plenty of times. The point I'm trying to make here is that, by definition, body modification is always a form of mutilation. The reason to use the word mutilate in some instances and not in others its because of the negative connotations. Technically (as my mother pointed out atthe time) l piercings were a form of self mutilation. Technically, a woman with breast implants had been disfigured. However, we only use this language to express our disapproval of the modification. Language is wonderful like that. We can express so much more then the literal meaning of our words. As I tried to point out, in this case, the negativity felt about circumcision is about the nature of the act, not the end result.
 
zeggman said:
Why, now that you mention it, yes. Your astuteness is astonishing. No wait, astounding. Astonishing.

I hope that isn't just the vertigo talking.
Click to expand...

Well, circumcision also harms children. That's the basic point of it all.

Yes, yes it does. Circumcision is cutting off a part of their body, leaving them screaming in pain with a bloody wound. Argue over the definition of "mutilate" if you want; there's certainly no way you can insist that circumcision is not intrinsically harmful.
 
zeggman said:
Maybe they were and maybe they weren't. Unless you were a consulting physician, you probably don't have an informed opinion.

Is it mutilation if there was no valid medical reason, but something else if there was?

Again, is it mutilation if there was no valid medical reason, and something else if there was?
Click to expand...

You're really hung up on that word mutilation aren't you? Do you feel insecure about the state of your penis that you keep harping on about this? Your barrage of posts about how your penis looks perfectly fine suggests the contrary, much like those homophobes who turn out to be closeted homosexuals.

Fact of the matter is that you were disfigured, for no medical reason at all, and without your own consent. Pray tell, did a physician do the job or a mohel? Or even a mohel who only gets his jollies by sucking on the penis afterwards?
 
myowninvention said:
Technically, a woman with breast implants had been disfigured. However, we only use this language to express our disapproval of the modification.
Click to expand...
I spent many single years in Los Angeles, and I've been with a fair number of women who have been enhanced. Sometimes their breasts don't look good, sometimes they look good but feel like baseballs, and sometimes they look and feel so wonderful that God himself is probably jealous of the surgeon who's responsible for them.

If the women who got less-than-perfect results feel comfortable as "cautionary tales" I think that's admirable. Unless a woman is having reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy, there is no real need to go under the knife, and even in that case it's done purely for cosmetic reasons. Informed consent would dictate that the botched jobs as well as the wonders of post-nature should be known to them before they decide to have surgery themselves.

OTOH, anyone who wanted to claim that all such women were "disfigured," with the negative connotations built into that word, would really in my opinion be lying, because there are some real works of art out there.

When it comes to circumcision, I happen to be such a work of art. I have no idea what I'd look like uncut, but it doesn't matter because my operation turned out great.

A woman who is having her breasts enhanced is an adult, and can make her own decisions. The fact that a child cannot make his own decisions, and sometimes things go wrong, should mean that extra caution is exercised. Parents should, at a minimum, be made aware of potential problems. Doctors should inform themselves, and the parents, honestly about both the potential medical benefits, and the potential risks.

I see that there are ignorant people who are going to continue to claim that I've been disfigured and maimed and irreparably damaged, but the reality is that I have not. I'm sorry if that's not a convenient result for anyone's political agenda, but I have more respect for truth than to keep quiet and let only one side of the story be told. A half truth is always a lie.

I'm sure I'd look just fine if I'd never been cut. The fact is, I have been, and I still look just fine. I am not, and never have been, mutilated.
 
I think we need to leave zeggman alone, otherwise he's going to start sending us pictures testifying to that grand aesthetic marvel of his, and I really don't want that. Let him have his victory; I'm not prepared for the psychological damage.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
I think we need to leave zeggman alone, otherwise he's going to start sending us pictures testifying to that grand aesthetic marvel of his, and I really don't want that. Let him have his victory; I'm not prepared for the psychological damage.
Click to expand...

I lol'd.

I was actually wondering if this thread was being used as erotica or what.
 
Zeggman seems to be operating under the impression that people are saying he should be ashamed to be circumcised and that his organ must look hideous. That's untrue, of course; but it makes his response understandable.
 
I'm sure people raised in cultures with foot wrapping, head wrapping, penis bifurcation, and a variety of other mutilations also found them aesthetically pleasing. Today in America we also have this problem with cropping the ears and tails of dogs. The point is that most people here reject that standard. The standard of medical necessity is not a double standard, it is just that some things pass it and some things do not.

I agree with the poster above who disagreed with "parental rights".
 
Checkmite said:
Well, circumcision also harms children. That's the basic point of it all.

Yes, yes it does. Circumcision is cutting off a part of their body, leaving them screaming in pain with a bloody wound. Argue over the definition of "mutilate" if you want; there's certainly no way you can insist that circumcision is not intrinsically harmful.
Click to expand...

What a hero you are. If not for you millions of children would have no idea they had been so harmed nor would they know who to blame for the harm. I'm just sorry for all the many generations of boys who went through their entire life never knowing they had been so harmed. I guess I'll light a candle for them...or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom