Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's on a baby and blood gushes out anyway. Why do modern-days humans continue to de-masculinize or de-feminize children who will one day become adults who have to conform to society due to this law of restructuring and developmental alterations through human body modification on the newborn. In some cultures circumcision is strictly for female babies whereas in others it is done on male babies. What is the cause of this rationalized evil and what is the stigma with believing that dispelling such an important outline in the human body is a form of hygiene rather than a form of sterilization?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
22 Posts
Youre bilarious. I have mine so iitsibiitsi tiny it would go either way around clean.

But this is weirly nouu interesting. What do you mean by thats what they want you to think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,781 Posts
I agree in general with the title of your thread.

I don't know how it got started. It seems that people tend to develop violent rituals. I once saw a documentary about an African tribe that carves designs into the checks of all its members—who knows what the hell that was for, but how did this painful ritual gain any traction? Who thought it up and why did all the others agree to it?

Of course, when you bring religion into the mix, any level of brutality becomes possible and acceptable.

As for male circumcision preventing infections, I'm not buying it, not at face value anyhow. A quick search indicates that there are a few congenital medical conditions that make male circumcision a good idea. Male circumcision has not been practiced for all of human history, so what happened to all the men who existed before? Did a large percentage of them develop infections and whatnot? That doesn't seem likely.

Sexual practices have probably changed, and HIV and many other STDs probably didn't even exist back then, so what circumcision actually seems to be is a reaction (not necessarily the best one) to modern sexual practices and medical conditions. At least some of these medical risks can be managed via behavioral solutions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,075 Posts
My son isn't circumcised. When one of my sisters had her son, I went to town on her about circumcising him. She did it anyway and I thought, "Aw, who cares. He'll be fine." Just can't get my panties in a wad anymore about all the crazy shit people do to their kids. Need to focus on the ways in which I am royally screwing up my own children. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Denature

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
Male circumcision and FGM isn't in the same universe.
Circumcision is the removal of some loose skin.
FGM is removing entire organs.
A male equivalent of FGM would be cutting the penis off.


That said, back to circumcision... again, it's just skin, barely any at that. It can be difficult to keep clean and make sex more uncomfortable for some guys. The nerves in a baby aren't sufficiently developed, as long as it's done very promptly and not a belated procedure, it isn't too painful for them. It can help the parents keep the baby clean for all the years they have to deal with taking care of each bathroom incident / rashes / tugs / sores / etc.

In contrast, again, FGM offers zero health benefits and quite a lot of downsides as a very invasive procedure, such as potential incontinence, infections, lack of sexual response causing dry painful sex... and of course the lifelong depravation of any pleasure. These procedures aren't anything alike, so comparing them was extremely ill-thought out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Male circumcision and FGM isn't in the same universe.
Circumcision is the removal of some loose skin.
FGM is removing entire organs.
A male equivalent of FGM would be cutting the penis off.


That said, back to circumcision... again, it's just skin, barely any at that. It can be difficult to keep clean and make sex more uncomfortable for some guys. The nerves in a baby aren't sufficiently developed, as long as it's done very promptly and not a belated procedure, it isn't too painful for them. It can help the parents keep the baby clean for all the years they have to deal with taking care of each bathroom incident / rashes / tugs / sores / etc.

In contrast, again, FGM offers zero health benefits and quite a lot of downsides as a very invasive procedure, such as potential incontinence, infections, lack of sexual response causing dry painful sex... and of course the lifelong depravation of any pleasure. These procedures aren't anything alike, so comparing them was extremely ill-thought out.
Complete ignorance, First off foreskin isn't "loose" nor is it "just some loose skin". It is sensitive and protects the glans of the penis from friction and the outside air. It's certainly not a small amount either, about 50% of the skin on the penis is removed during circumcision including some of the most sensitive parts of the penis (such as the Frenulum).
"It can be difficult to clean"
take a shower
"makes sex more uncomfortable for some guys"
You've got it backwards, Foreskin makes sex comfortable for men and women. It protects the glans so they don't become dryed up and insensitive. That dried unlubricated glans causes uncomfortable friction in the vagina.
I don't know were you got the idea that circumcision wasn't an extremely painful and tramatic experiance for baby boys, since they are too young for anesthetics baby's have to be strapped down in a medieval looking device so the doctor can cut half the skin on his penis off as he screams his lungs off and chokes in pain.

Circumcision is also a very dangerous procedure for the baby. They can lose their entire penis from infection or from a botched job or even die outright altogether. Male circumcision also provides 0 benefits. It was made popular by christian nutjobs who didn't want men to masturbate or enjoy sex.

...So no, it wasn't an ill-thought out comparison at all. You shouldn't speak so boldly about something you know so little about, like this entire post just reeks of gynocentrism and misandry. No compassion or care for men at all.

Since we're on the topic I'm going to share a short video about a boy who got his penis burnt from circumcision and how it would lead him down to a path of sexual abuse and suicide, for both him and his brother.
[video]https://files.catbox.moe/l20n0x.webm[/video]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
686 Posts
Where is the line drawn between "child abuse" and "outdated norm" I wonder...

All societies across all time have undoubtedly held some belief, practice, ritual or way of being and living, which caused unnecessary suffering be it physical, social, psychological or spiritual. This will probably always be the case.

When is it better to change external conditions to suit our ideals, or our ideals to align more harmoniously with external conditions...

It does seem like our social attitudes greatly inform whatever meaning and thus, emotional impact we attach to an event, long after its occurred. To some, circumcision could simply be a tradition, a kind of 'right of passage' for that particular time, location, and degree of awareness. To others a great and unnecessary evil, a horrific injustice to be fought. All in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
Complete ignorance, First off foreskin isn't "loose" nor is it "just some loose skin".
You misread. "loose" is not referring to it's attachment, but to the flexibility of the skin itself. Just like saying some breeds of dog have loose neck skin.
The foreskin on uncircumcised males is very flexible and moveable = loose.

"It can be difficult to clean"
take a shower
FYI - babies can't shower. It's their parents (most often mothers) who must clean up after them, for a minimum of 3 years, many times in one day... and having loose skin in the way of wiping with baby wipes (as is the norm) can be a problem in the case of accidents, especially if they have diarrhea - where it's contained in the diaper and is going to come forwards to.
What's to be done? Bathe the baby 5 times a day until they get better? Irritate all of their skin? What if it's a sickly baby? Plenty of babies get all kinds of nasty rashes and sores... having extra loose skin to invite irritation isn't helpful for them.
Obviously you have never cleaned up after a baby.


"makes sex more uncomfortable for some guys"
You've got it backwards, Foreskin makes sex comfortable for men and women. It protects the glans so they don't become dryed up and insensitive. That dried unlubricated glans causes uncomfortable friction in the vagina.
I'm not sure how many penises you have had intimate sexual contact with... but as a woman who has had both circumcised and uncircumcised partners, I can tell you... some guys do have problems with their foreskin. Over the course of their life it can get too loose, and cause a lot of painful tugging during sex. Even a normal foreskin can be pulled too hard if the woman has tighter muscles.
Lubrication is a separate issue... you may not be aware, but women who are properly aroused (and don't have sexual dysfunction) provide all the lube that's needed. Women have a gland just for that.

In my experience, albeit limited, partners who were circumcised were better at sex, because they were more carefree and not worried about hurting themselves. They didn't flinch in fear when a woman tried to handle their member because of past painful encounters.

Also, friction in itself is not uncomfortable for vaginas. That's the part that helps make sex pleasurable for women.
Dryness can cause chafing, which is uncomfortable, but again lubrication is a whole separate issue... either the women involved need more foreplay, or if she has dysfunction a bottle of lubricant should be used.


Circumcision is also a very dangerous procedure for the baby. They can lose their entire penis from infection or from a botched job or even die outright altogether.
In western countries, circumcision is so popular that there are more circumcised men than uncircumcised. The rate of success is therefore very high, and most men still have their penises firmly attached.


It was made popular by Christian nutjobs who didn't want men to masturbate or enjoy sex.
Nope. That was Jews who made it popular, FYI. We carry on with the custom that they started, because it has a useful purpose in childcare tasks and for sexual confidence.

The sheer prevalence of majority circumcised western men paying a lot of attention to their boners and consuming porn, proves without a doubt that circumcision doesn't prevent enjoyment or significantly reduce sensation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
FYI - babies can't shower. It's their parents (most often mothers) who must clean up after them, for a minimum of 3 years, many times in one day... and having loose skin in the way of wiping with baby wipes (as is the norm) can be a problem in the case of accidents, especially if they have diarrhea - where it's contained in the diaper and is going to come forwards to.
What's to be done? Bathe the baby 5 times a day until they get better? Irritate all of their skin? What if it's a sickly baby? Plenty of babies get all kinds of nasty rashes and sores... having extra loose skin to invite irritation isn't helpful for them.
Obviously you have never cleaned up after a baby.
So you need to mutilate your babies genitals because you're too lazy to wash his peepee?

I'm not sure how many penises you have had intimate sexual contact with... but as a woman who has had both circumcised and uncircumcised partners, I can tell you... some guys do have problems with their foreskin. Over the course of their life it can get too loose, and cause a lot of painful tugging during sex. Even a normal foreskin can be pulled too hard if the woman has tighter muscles.
Lubrication is a separate issue... you may not be aware, but women who are properly aroused (and don't have sexual dysfunction) provide all the lube that's needed. Women have a gland just for that.

In my experience, albeit limited, partners who were circumcised were better at sex, because they were more carefree and not worried about hurting themselves. They didn't flinch in fear when a woman tried to handle their member because of past painful encounters.

Also, friction in itself is not uncomfortable for vaginas. That's the part that helps make sex pleasurable for women.
Dryness can cause chafing, which is uncomfortable, but again lubrication is a whole separate issue... either the women involved need more foreplay, or if she has dysfunction a bottle of lubricant should be used.
Basically, you don't care about mens pleasure or enjoyment of sex at all and want them to be mutilated for your own benefit. Your anecdotal evidence is worthless too as uncut men shouldn't have their foreskin being loose and still covering much of the glans. Unless they are someone who restored their foreskin through stretching. Usually the foreskin fits tight and snugly over the penis, when erect it pulls back and looks much like a cut penis but with a lubricated and uncracked head.

In western countries, circumcision is so popular that there are more circumcised men than uncircumcised. The rate of success is therefore very high, and most men still have their penises firmly attached.
Circumcision is not popular in western countries, it is popular in 3rd world countries. The only "western" country that still has high rates of circumcision is the united states of America and the number of people getting circumcised there is dropping every year. Also just becomes a procedure is common doesn't mean it is successful, lol. By that logic you could say that lobotomy's were very "successful" because of how popular it was.

Nope. That was Jews who made it popular, FYI. We carry on with the custom that they started,
because it has a useful purpose in childcare tasks and for sexual confidence.
Circumcision is a ritual that has been around since before recorded history. Many theories seem to be that it originated from eastern africa but it was also seen in Egypt. The jews merely adopted the practice. Since the advent of Christianity, Christians have claimed that jesus outlawed circumcision as an old and outdated practice of the old testament that shouldn't be followed anymore. In fact in the bible Paul states TWICE that those who are circumcised cannot find any salvation in Christ.
In the 1700s and 1800s there began a strange phobia of masturbation viewing it as a great evil worse than incest. As time went on in the 1800s the scientific community began to blame masturbation as a cause for various diseases and health issues and eventually embraced circumcision as a catch all procedure for most medical problems (much like lobotomy was). Over time most countries in the Anglo sphere who were practicing this came to their senses and realized that circumcision has no benefit at all and serves no purpose other than to greatly reduce sexual pleasure in men. The only English country as we all know that still practices it is America. Probably because foreskin is used to make skin cream and the psychopaths of the industry want their money.

The motivation to circumcise boys was the exact same as the one to circumcised girls and yet here you are defending it.

The sheer prevalence of majority circumcised western men paying a lot of attention to their boners and consuming porn, proves without a doubt that circumcision doesn't prevent enjoyment or significantly reduce sensation.
Men consuming porn has nothing to do with the sensitivity of their penis, if anything it just means that genital mutilation doesn't make men asexual as they still produce testosterone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,015 Posts
So you need to mutilate your babies genitals because you're too lazy to wash his peepee?
No one said anything about laziness... it comes back to difficulty. Have you ever rubbed and rubbed at a dirty spot on skin somewhere? Now imagine it's sensitive skin, with folds... and multiply that rubbing to 12+ times per day. If your baby gets sick keeping him clean without causing sores is going to be DIFFICULT, if not impossible.

Diapers are a modern thing - babies used to run around naked. So runny poop went down their legs, not hanging out in their diapers while they move around.

I still maintain you must have never cared for a baby.



Basically, you don't care about mens pleasure or enjoyment of sex at all
Wondering how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote about men being afraid to be touched because of traumatic painful experiences.


The only "western" country that still has high rates of circumcision is the united states of America and the number of people getting circumcised there is dropping every year. Also just becomes a procedure is common doesn't mean it is successful, lol. By that logic you could say that lobotomy's were very "successful" because of how popular it was.
Isn't the US one of the most populous countries in the western world?

And, you seemed to miss something there. I connected the high rate of circumcised men with the high rate of porn use and masturbation and concluded their penises must be in functioning order = successful procedures.


Since the advent of Christianity, Christians have claimed that jesus outlawed circumcision as an old and outdated practice of the old testament that shouldn't be followed anymore. In fact in the bible Paul states TWICE that those who are circumcised cannot find any salvation in Christ.
Wrong again. You aren't very educated about Christianity.

The New Testament does NOT outlaw physical circumcision, rather it explains that it has no spiritual bearing the way that the Old Testament outlined. That's because the age of Grace had come into effect - where faith in Christ, rather than following religious laws, lead to redemption.
This is also why you could never accurately say that real Christianity outlaws circumcision - it simply doesn't matter.
The apostle Paul is referring to people who are ONLY circumcised in the body, and not circumcised in the HEART. He places a great deal of emphasis on explaining this, so it's hard to understand how anyone reading the text for themselves could miss it (compared to perhaps reading someone else's mistaken impression elsewhere?).

It's interesting too, to consider that the Christian form of spiritual circumcision (the heart) is using that metaphor to mean cutting away superfluous things - like greed and jealousy, etc.
So it's obvious that in the minds of men at that time - circumcision was not removing any necessary parts for pleasure, or else they wouldn't use it as a metaphor about what is unnecessary.


The motivation to circumcise boys was the exact same as the one to circumcised girls and yet here you are defending it.
I come back to my original point... Female Genital Mutilation is not in the same universe as male circumcision.
Boys who are circumcised still have their penises. Girls who are mutilated are missing organs that are necessary for experiencing any pleasure.

For men, their sexual release and pleasure are tied together. A man can't complete the sex act if he doesn't experience pleasure. Therefore reproduction wouldn't occur.

But for women, their pleasure is not "necessary" for the sex act, or to bear children. This leaves room for some destructive religious practices of removing their ability to feel any pleasure, which wouldn't be possible to do to men unless the goal was to dramatically reduce the population.
Still, throughout the course of history, there have been many, many eunuchs. I'm sure those men would have far preferred to be circumcised (loose a little skin), than to loose their ability to experience sexual pleasure at all.

This is why the two practices are not in the same universe - the effects are far different.


There are millions and millions of circumcised men in the US who are not complaining. If they were, I'd be coming to a much different conclusion on the matter.
Since you seem a little sheltered on the subject of sex in general, a visual aid might help. You can see circumcised actors on porn who quite obviously experience sexual gratification since their orgasms are shown from start to finish on camera, and men produce a tangible result when satisfaction is achieved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: jamaix and Paulie

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Even if you are feeling that way how for goodness sake can you compare female genital mutilation with male circumcision?
Get some facts first about FGM. I do not think that you will even consider checking out this website, so I am posting it for others to see:

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation
Female circumcision being worse than male circumcision doesn't make it incomparable. Both are genital mutilation, both are forced, both are painful and traumatic, and both greatly reduce sexual sensitivity. The problem is the person who declared that the two were incomparable was downplaying how bad male genital mutilation is and even justifying it with the lousiest of excuses (I don't want to have to clean loose skin, inconveniences in the bedroom, etc). Clearly such a person has no idea how painful and traumatic it is.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top