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?
I used the arm skin analogy because someone else said "it [circumcision] doesn't prevent the body part from functioning, so it's okay to do it". Context, my dear, context.
Oh, I see. So in U.S. its not considered it, but in the other countries it IS. Not considered, but IS.
Indeed. People who have cultural traditions, even ones that include mutilation, tend to think nothing is wrong with their cultural traditions. But people outside of those traditions, like most of the rest of the world and more than a 1/4 of the people in the US, it most certainly IS mutilation.
Well, naturally, because other cultures think its mutilation despite it not fitting the definition well it must be!
It DOES fit the definition. You showed us all that yourself.
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?
It would decrease the likelihood of pain, discomfort, or infection under the clitoral hood. Exactly the same as the hood of the penis.
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.
Uh huh. Let's cut off body parts because we're too lazy to wash them. EXCELLENT idea! In fact, let's not just do it to our OWN bodies, let's do it to our children's bodies who have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. Marvelous.
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.
Disgusting. Not going to "begrudge" someone for cutting off parts of their infant's bodies.
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.
Well, if you didn't have the balls to do it when you were old enough to make the decision
yourself, then that would be your problem. There's no way to know that a child is going to want to have it done, and the procedure is irreversible. As such, the child should be the one to decide, not his parents. Parents should not have the right to forceably remove parts of their children's bodies for reasons that do not inhibit or threaten their child's life.
