• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for higher circumcision rate

So do you think it's wrong to pierce a baby's ears?

No. To each his own.

That makes no sense at all because, it doesn't matter how they are wrapped, ALL penises are ugly. :2wave:

Clearly, you've never seen this:

David-Beckham.jpg


That's a might pretty peen. :mrgreen:
 
Attention, Attention CUT MEN of the board

Line forms here for all interested CUT men
we will que up, and on Saturday night, in the Tavern, We are going to run the train on americanwoman so she can decide once and for all which is the purdiest pecker :)
 
Attention, Attention CUT MEN of the board

Line forms here for all interested CUT men
we will que up, and on Saturday night, in the Tavern, We are going to run the train on americanwoman so she can decide once and for all which is the purdiest pecker :)

you must have missed the tavern gangbang last week.... maybe I have been with cut men after all..... :3oops:
 
And you've seen all to compare? :doh

I watch porn. From what I can tell, one looks just as ugly as the next. If you put a gaggle of penises in a lineup, most chicks would be like, "WTF? This is nasty!"

AS far as looks go,

Cut:
hogans_heroes_schultz_small.jpg


Uncut:
coneheads2.jpg


Both are ****in' ugly.
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I wanna see a gaggle of penises in a line up. :2razz:
 
Yeah, what a horrendous comparison.

For starters, i'd dare say the pain would be greater as unlike the penis if you cut off the skin on an arm its going to expose the area underneath it and also a larger chance of getting muscle, tendon, and other things that are more of an issue. Not to mention, unlike the penis, it would leave the arm exposed to external sources meaning infection becomes more likely during that time.

Yes, looks are part of it for some as a joking thing. However the prime reason seems to typically be upkeep. Simply put, it is easier to upkeep on it when its cut. It has nearly 0 harmful reprucussions to the person.

So, what would be the harmful repercussions of cutting off a infant female's outer labia? Or clitoral hood? Not her clit, her clitoral hood - which is QUITE comparable to what you are cutting off the infant boy.

Lets look at the actual DEFINITION of mutilation shall we?

"an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part "

"Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death"

"mutilated - maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled "

Definitions of Mutilation

just a coupe that came up.

Disfigurement? Arguable since even that is speaking of the spoiling of appearance and again that does go back to the "how it looks. But even then, it does not deprive one of limb or body part.

The next definition? Degrades the appearance (debatable) or the function? Hmm, doesn't degrade the function at all. not mutilation by that definitoin.

Having the body crippled or disabled. Preeeeeeeety sure my guy's still working so I don't think that's the case.

No, sorry, its not mutilation and the attempt to compare it or allued to the abomonable things being done in other places in the world that actually DOES have a legitimate negative effect upon the organ is amazingly dishonest and frankly just makes your entire argument look like it belongs in the realm of something on SNL than a debate site.

"degrades the appearance". Thank you for proving what I already knew - that it fits the definition.
 
Circumcision is not intended to prevent orgasm! And there are possible long-term health complications from female genital mutilation including UTIs, infertility, and pregnancy complications.

Comparing circs to FGM is absurd. :roll:

Cutting off the clitoral hood wouldn't prevent orgasm. It would just desensitize the clit a bit, quite identical to removing the hood of the penis. It would also be more sanitary since "gunk" can get under there and cause discomfort or infection. And, it would have 0 harmful side effects, unless you consider cutting off a part of the body a harmful side effect. Which apparently you don't.
 
Cutting off the clitoral hood wouldn't prevent orgasm. It would just desensitize the clit a bit, quite identical to removing the hood of the penis. It would also be more sanitary since "gunk" can get under there and cause discomfort or infection. And, it would have 0 harmful side effects, unless you consider cutting off a part of the body a harmful side effect. Which apparently you don't.
Who says it has 0 harmful side effects? (Even male circs have risks/side effects issues.) I've read of problems with UTIs (which supposedly is lessened by male circs) and pregnancy/childbirth complications.
 
and here was me thinking America was becoming more european
 
"degrades the appearance". Thank you for proving what I already knew - that it fits the definition.

Which again, is opinion. Unlike if someone gets their arm sheered off or has a gigantic scar running over half their body which would generally be universally accepted as a degradation of appearance, the cutting of the foreskin is not something held universally to be a "degradation" of appearance.

If your only argument is based on the fact it degrades appearance and that is only based on the fact that it CHANGES the appearance than I take it if you have a child you would never ever ever ever ever cut its hear because then you'd be mutilating your child. Better remove clipping finger or toe nails as well. Also, make sure you never actually forcefully pull out a lose tooth on your kid because if it doesn't happen naturally you're mutilating them because you're changing their appearance. What a horrendous parent you'd be! You'd possibly be mutilating your kid like every few weeks!

:roll:
 
Which again, is opinion. Unlike if someone gets their arm sheered off or has a gigantic scar running over half their body which would generally be universally accepted as a degradation of appearance, the cutting of the foreskin is not something held universally to be a "degradation" of appearance.

If your only argument is based on the fact it degrades appearance and that is only based on the fact that it CHANGES the appearance than I take it if you have a child you would never ever ever ever ever cut its hear because then you'd be mutilating your child. Better remove clipping finger or toe nails as well. Also, make sure you never actually forcefully pull out a lose tooth on your kid because if it doesn't happen naturally you're mutilating them because you're changing their appearance. What a horrendous parent you'd be! You'd possibly be mutilating your kid like every few weeks!

:roll:
Yeah, because cutting hair is EXACTLY like cutting off part of a penis.

Sure, it's not considered mutilation by most people in the US, but in over half the world - where the practice is NOT common - it most certainly IS mutilation.

No, a better analogy would be to cut off the female infant's outer labia or clitoral hood. That wouldn't be mutilation either, by your standard.

Better to let the child decide for themselves if they want part of their body removed.
 
Its a cultural practice that doesn't have any negative effects. I don't see why people get so up in arms about it, as if its a big deal whether or not a kid gets circ'ed. Its not as if its done to keep a man down or something. Hopefully my son won't think he's less of a man, because he's missing a little bit of foreskin. If he does, I haven't raised him right.
 
I say to each his own. I'm wouldn't do it to a son of mine because I see no purpose in doing that.

I also won't prevent anyone from doing it to their kid if they want because I see no purpose in doing that.
 
Its a cultural practice that doesn't have any negative effects. I don't see why people get so up in arms about it, as if its a big deal whether or not a kid gets circ'ed. Its not as if its done to keep a man down or something. Hopefully my son won't think he's less of a man, because he's missing a little bit of foreskin. If he does, I haven't raised him right.
and just how will you feel if he does not enjoy sex as much as he could have if you hadn't hacked the end of his **** off :lol:
fwiw, i buthchered my son, but plan on discouraging him from continuing the practice
 
I say to each his own. I'm wouldn't do it to a son of mine because I see no purpose in doing that.

I also won't prevent anyone from doing it to their kid if they want because I see no purpose in doing that.



I know plenty of girls (and guys) that consider foreskin a deal breaker.

If you want your kid to get more repeats, cut it off.
 
I know plenty of girls (and guys) that consider foreskin a deal breaker.

If you want your kid to get more repeats, cut it off.

Maybe I just don't get around as much, but I've never met a woman who had a problem with my foreskin.
 
Yeah, because cutting hair is EXACTLY like cutting off part of a penis.

Says the woman who talks of flaying skin off an arm is the same as a snip of a small amount of skin on the penis. :roll:

I figure if you want to play the hyperbolic game I could to. Additionally, if you're going to take the most literal interpritation of degrades appearance possible then why should it not apply across the board?

Sure, it's not considered mutilation by most people in the US, but in over half the world - where the practice is NOT common - it most certainly IS mutilation.

Oh, I see. So in U.S. its not considered it, but in the other countries it IS. Not considered, but IS.

Well, naturally, because other cultures think its mutilation despite it not fitting the definition well it must be!

No, a better analogy would be to cut off the female infant's outer labia or clitoral hood. That wouldn't be mutilation either, by your standard.

I honestly can't speak on that. Does it provide any proven benefit outside of potentially looks? Does it have any significant chance of reducing sensation or use in anything more than an anecdotal way? Does it open up the area for any greater chance of infection or other issues?

Circumsizing the penis helps with hygine so it has a tangable benefit. No credible study I've seen or heard from confirms that it has a significant chance of causing any actual reduction of stimulation or sensation. It does not raise ones chances to my knowledge of having any other medical issues involving the penis.

If its like that, then no I wouldn't have a problem if people wanted to do it. I wouldn't do it to my children because the health benefit is obviously not worth while enough for it to become common practice and the looks of it would actually make them appear odd because it'd be so outside the norm. But if it had absolutely no impact on the way in which it function in all facets of its use, gave rise to no possible further medical issues, and had some kind of tangible benefit I'd not begrudge someone having it done to their baby. That said, I don't think those are true in the case you state but perhaps I'm wrong.

Better to let the child decide for themselves if they want part of their body removed.

Not really. I'll tell you personally I'm damn happy my parents did it, because the fear and apprehension I have for needles and surgery...let alone down there...would probably keep me from doing it at an older age while at the same time being upset that I don't have it done. Having it done at a baby was the best option, as I had it done and I have no memory what so ever.
 
Back
Top Bottom