Iceland to Ban Male Circumcision

[Niamh.]

Thoughts? I know female circumcision is much worse but I don't get how people can be against that and then think there's nothing at all wrong with male circumcision? Personally I think unless it's done for medical reasons, it's barbaric

Iceland is poised to become the first European country to outlaw male circumcision amid signs that the ritual common to both Judaism and Islam may be a new battleground over religious freedom.

A bill currently before the Icelandic parliament proposes a penalty of up to six years in prison for anyone carrying out a circumcision other than for medical reasons. Critics say the move, which has sparked alarm among religious leaders across Europe, would make life for Jews and Muslims in Iceland unsustainable.

One in three men globally is thought to be circumcised, the vast majority for religious or cultural reasons. Many Jews and Muslims fear the issue of circumcision could become a proxy for antisemitism and Islamophobia, pointing to similar tensions over religious dress and the ritual slaughter of animals for meat.

Muslim and Jewish leaders attacked the proposal, while Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Catholic Church in the European Union, said the bill was a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom. “The criminalisation of circumcision is a very grave measure that raises deep concern.”

The Icelandic bill says the circumcision of young boys violates their rights and is incompatible with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It draws a parallel with female genital mutilation, already outlawed in most European countries.

The bill says circumcisions are performed without anaesthesia, and claims the procedure is often carried out “in homes that are not sterile, and not by doctors but by religious leaders. There is a high risk of infections under such conditions that may lead to death.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

[Crimson Dynamo]

Great news, baby mutilation for pointless superstition is disgusting


(do you hear that USA)

:bored:

[Niamh.]

Great news, baby mutilation for pointless superstition is disgusting


(do you hear that USA)

:bored:

The thing about the USA is that most don't even have it done for religious reasons, it's "the norm" to just have it done otherwise you're dirty.............they should just show their boys how to wash themselves properly imo

[Vicky.]

I don't think it should be done except for medical reasons so i agree with this. Yeah some people will argue 'culture' and such but..its mutilation really IMO. If adults want to decide to get it done, fine. But it should not be inflicted on kids.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The thing about the USA is that most don't even have it done for religious reasons, it's "the norm" to just have it done otherwise you're dirty.............they should just show their boys how to wash themselves properly imo

Its a religious hangover and its a horrible practice - would it kill mothers to do a basic google search?

[Vicky.]

Also I have read horror stories about people doing this with blunt/dirty blades, and then EATING the bits that have been cut off. I get that this is not the norm, but just..ew :umm2:

[Vicky.]

Its a religious hangover and its a horrible practice - would it kill mothers to do a basic google search?

Parents, you surely mean here.

[Cherie]

Yeah agree with this, putting a baby through this is pretty barbaric, they should be allowed to decide themselves when they get to be teenagers, same with pierced ears,I can't stand seeing toddlers with pierced ears.

[Vicky.]

Yeah agree with this, putting a baby through this is pretty barbaric, they should be allowed to decide themselves when they get to be teenagers, same with pierced ears,I can't stand seeing toddlers with pierced ears.

I agree with this. But apparently its a very controversial opinion :laugh: As I have found when voicing this before. Attacked from all angles for thinking you should not just put holes in your babies ears for decoration.

[Niamh.]

Its a religious hangover and its a horrible practice - would it kill mothers to do a basic google search?

Parents*

Aren't most Americans Christians though? It's not really a Christian tradition (or maybe it used to be?)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Parents, you surely mean here.

i do, thank you

:hehe:

[Niamh.]

I agree with this. But apparently its a very controversial opinion :laugh: As I have found when voicing this before. Attacked from all angles for thinking you should not just put holes in your babies ears for decoration.

It's controversial? :/ I would have thought loads would agree that it's horrific, in fact I'm surprised it's not illegal tbh

[Crimson Dynamo]

Parents*

Aren't most Americans Christians though? It's not really a Christian tradition (or maybe it used to be?)

https://qz.com/885018/why-is-circumcision-so-popular-in-the-us/

Its a mix of ignorance, religion and the fact they are so "isolated" from other developed countries :umm2:

[Niamh.]

https://qz.com/885018/why-is-circumcision-so-popular-in-the-us/

Its a mix of ignorance, religion and the fact they are so "isolated" from other developed countries :umm2:

:umm2:

It is a legacy of God’s commandment to Abraham to circumcise his penis as a sign of their special bond

[Crimson Dynamo]

:umm2:

It is a legacy of God’s commandment to Abraham to circumcise his penis as a sign of their special bond

I expect that bit was put in to keep the gang together. Just like they used to stretch babies heads in South America. I get why 2000 years ago this could be useful but ffs now?


Its beyond crazy

[Crimson Dynamo]

I wonder if Farm foods, Lidl and Aldi will follow suit?

I expect this was why marc did not get kept on at Lidl, someone reported his shorn penis when they spotted it in the loos

:think:

[Vicky.]

It's controversial? :/ I would have thought loads would agree that it's horrific, in fact I'm surprised it's not illegal tbh

I expect its those who have put holes in their childs ears for decoration that kick off about it. maybe as they feel guilty, maybe as they do actually agree its fine..who knows. Everytime I have mentioned it anywhere I have been attacked for it D: Where to me, its common sense.

I mean, if Skye asked for it done at maybe 13/14 ish, I would let her get it done. But I totally disagree with doing it to babies/young children. My stepdaughter got her ears pierced at 3 years old and managed to rip the earrings out (****ing idiot aunt put hoops in too...) and then they got them done AGAIN and the same thing happened. Its just stupid. Poor kid.

[Twosugars]

Wow. Iceland is picking a fight with two politically influential religions.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Wow. Iceland is picking a fight with two politically influential religions.

if their defense is "coz God told us to"

I think Iceland have very little to worry about

[jaxie]

I think it's very progressive of Iceland to take this stand, good on them! I was just coming here to post this one myself!

In one of the articles I read they were saying a father was stopped from having his son circumcised for religious reasons because the mother objected. I couldn't help think the mother objects, what about the child! People think they can chop about a baby's privates in the name of religion and poor baby can't say stuff all. Just another wicked practice because God told us to.

Medical reasons only unless the grown men volunteer.

[Vicky.]

I don't actually understand how this could be a religious thing. Like, it pleases god to have foreskins removed. If this is the case, then why does god create babies with foreskins? if god hated foreskins, God would just...not create his humans with them surely?

Unless I misunderstand it all. which is possible given I am not religious in any way.

Incidentally, babies do not have a religion. So those saying its about religious freedom..well...the baby may well grow up to not be religious at all, and they have had a part of their body removed because of someone elses religion. Which is why it should be adults only.

[jaxie]

I don't actually understand how this could be a religious thing. Like, it pleases god to have foreskins removed. If this is the case, then why does god create babies with foreskins? if god hated foreskins, God would just...not create his humans with them surely?

Unless I misunderstand it all. which is possible given I am not religious in any way.

Incidentally, babies do not have a religion. So those saying its about religious freedom..well...the baby may well grow up to not be religious at all, and they have had a part of their body removed because of someone elses religion. Which is why it should be adults only.

Because God didn't say stuff all. People made it up. It doesn't have to make sense if God said it.

Also agree 100% about piercing baby's ears. I was appalled when sister in law did nieces at 1.

[y.winter]

I come from a Jewish family (not religious), so I personally went under the knife.
I don't like the act at all, especially the fact that it's being done by a Rabbi with no medical authority, and overall it's quite barbaric.
I'm atheist so I'm not really going to do it to my son, if I'm going to have one.
Keep it for medical reasons...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Saying it was Gods will pretty much guaranteed that it would be obeyed just as saying something wouold "bring bad luck" had a similar effect.

Like when mirrors were invented they were very expensive to make and own and children could and did break them so parents said that if you broke one it would bring 7 years bad luck and "hey presto" they lasted a lot longer and kids avoided playing with them

[Twosugars]

if their defense is "coz God told us to"

I think Iceland have very little to worry about

very optimistic of you, the leathery one :kiss:
coz yeah, religions are famous for not kicking up the fuss (not)

the only reason why Iceland may get away with it it's because it's small with small population and not many orthodox Muslims and Jews.

[Crimson Dynamo]

very optimistic of you, the leathery one :kiss:
coz yeah, religions are famous for not kicking up the fuss (not)

the only reason why Iceland may get away with it it's because it's small with small population and not many orthodox Muslims and Jews.

Denmark also did this

[Twosugars]

Denmark also did this
:conf: where does it say that?
Reports say Iceland will be the first in Europe

[Crimson Dynamo]

:conf: where does it say that?
Reports say Iceland will be the first in Europe


i just meant they are on the same page

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3

[jaxie]

In fact would be fascinated to see some grown men volunteering for what the baby has, some religious bloke, not a doctor, no medication for pain. Young men showing their devotion to god. Oh dear look the practice died out.

[Twosugars]

i just meant they are on the same page

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3

naughty trumpet

[GoldHeart]

I don't think it should be done except for medical reasons so i agree with this. Yeah some people will argue 'culture' and such but..its mutilation really IMO. If adults want to decide to get it done, fine. But it should not be inflicted on kids.

I really feel uneasy talking about this but has anyone heard what they're doing in some places?? when they circumcise babies? . Apparently they're passing diseases into them as they stop the blood pouring with their mouth:shocked: :umm2: .

I only recently found out rabbi's were doing the rabbi bite ,and medical people are telling them not to as they're risking the babies of herpes :yuk: .

So that's the problem I have with it and it makes me feel quesy . In general though if the male circumcision is done properly without any complications or any infections then it's not as bad . However as a baby they don't have a choice so it's still debateable .

But when religion & culture comes into it ,they will continue to have it regardless . But I just wish they all used proper medical equipment and took advice to keep the babies safe . As an adult it's usually medical reasons but some also have it done for cosmetic ,but I don't agree with cosmetic as it's not exactly having your hair cut ,it's a serious operation.

[Vicky.]

Deleted a bunch of offtopic and jokey comments from here. Its not really a 'funny' topic and serious debates is not C&G

[Crimson Dynamo]

its not that different from these ladies who put the rings on their necks

https://static9.depositphotos.com/1029156/1173/i/950/depositphotos_11735301-stock-photo-thailand-chiang-mai-karen-long.jpg

[thesheriff443]

Deleted a bunch of offtopic and jokey comments from here. Its not really a 'funny' topic and serious debates is not C&G

See that's the problem round here people are too serous!, the world is one big joke! Footballers get 300 grand a week and will spit roast anything while the mother of their kids is at home. And this is acceptable and even admired it never wonder I can't be arsed with serious debates

[GoldHeart]

Deleted a bunch of offtopic and jokey comments from here. Its not really a 'funny' topic and serious debates is not C&G

I've stayed on topic Did you see my post about what the rabbi bite ? .

[Twosugars]

I was gonna make some (serious) points about sexual performance which would appear to favour circumcision (I don't support circumcising babies), but maybe it's not the right place. :dog:

[Vicky.]

I've stayed on topic Did you see my post about what the rabbi bite ? .

Also I have read horror stories about people doing this with blunt/dirty blades, and then EATING the bits that have been cut off. I get that this is not the norm, but just..ew :umm2:

Had already mentioned this, or similar :p

See that's the problem round here people are too serous!, the world is one big joke! Footballers get 300 grand a week and will spit roast anything while the mother of their kids is at home. And this is acceptable and even admired it never wonder I can't be arsed with serious debates
Jokes are fine in any other section tbh. If you do not wish to be serious, do not post in serious debates :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Had already mentioned this, or similar :p


Jokes are fine in any other section tbh. If you do not wish to be serious, do not post in serious debates :shrug:

Serious debates is just a name, people should be allowed to make jokes as a lot of serious topics are just that

a joke

[Marsh.]

sexual performance which would appear to favour circumcision

No jokes please.

It kills all sensitivity in the poor bell end. :nono:

[GoldHeart]

Had already mentioned this, or similar :p


Jokes are fine in any other section tbh. If you do not wish to be serious, do not post in serious debates :shrug:

I don't know why people always make jokes about male slicing , they wouldn't joke about female slicing as that's more obvious it's child abuse !! :shocked: .

I guess people have different ways of coping with such a heavy topic , i can't laugh at things like this though as the mental picture is just enough to make me feel ill :umm2: .

[bots]

Had already mentioned this, or similar :p


Jokes are fine in any other section tbh. If you do not wish to be serious, do not post in serious debates :shrug:

humour comes from serious situations though, its how we break tension etc.

[Marsh.]

What's the reasoning behind female mutilation? What do they actually cut off? The clit? D:

[Vicky.]

Serious debates is just a name, people should be allowed to make jokes as a lot of serious topics are just that

a joke


Do you think male babies having parts of their penis sliced off is a joke?

[Vicky.]

What's the reasoning behind female mutilation? What do they actually cut off? The clit? D:

Sometimes, yes. FGM is just totally gross tbh. At least there CAN be reasons for male circumcision.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do you think male babies having parts of their penis sliced off is a joke?

no but its not life threatening, its a stupid superstition, like all religious stuff

like say the religion of Islam

if you dont laugh at it you can get depressed

[Marsh.]

no but its not life threatening, its a stupid superstition, like all religious stuff

like say the religion of Islam

if you dont laugh at it you can get depressed

Well, tbf, any kind of amputation doesn't have to be life threatening, doesn't make it a walk in the park. D:

[Vicky.]

no but its not life threatening, its a stupid superstition, like all religious stuff

like say the religion of Islam

if you dont laugh at it you can get depressed

Yeah I do understand this. I have a habit of making jokes when a topic makes me uncomfortable to be fair. I just really do not think a thread as serious as this should be filled up with people laughing and making fun of each other.

[GoldHeart]

What's the reasoning behind female mutilation? What do they actually cut off? The clit? D:

There's ways you can find out by googling the information , but i think it is part of that as a way to control them and stop them having sex before marriage .And people joked about males losing sensitivity well i'm pretty sure females won't be able to have normal relationships after they've been mutilated down there :shocked: .

It's basically child abuse whichever way you look at it . There's nothing that should ever be removed from a girl down there :oh::crazy: .

[Marsh.]

There's ways you can find out by googling the information , but i think it is part of that as a way to control them and stop them having sex before marriage and people joked about males losing sensitivity well i'm pretty sure females won't be able to have normal relationships after they've been mutilated down there :shocked: .

It's basically child abuse whichever way you look at it . There's nothing that should ever be removed from a girl down there :oh::crazy: .

Who did?

And, no, I'm not googling it.

I don't recall supporting this for men or women so less of the lecturing tone. :hee:

[thesheriff443]

It's like minded people having a joke, does anyone in this thread actually think what we think on this subject that it will stop circumcisions.

It don't matter how serious you take this thread it won't make a difference, the same as every serious new or debate thread

[Marsh.]

Oh ffs, Vicky's not suggesting the thread will change anything.

There's a difference between someone adopting a less serious tone in their reply and people just swapping jokes and having a full page of circumcision related puns.

It's funny, but when it accounts for most of what is supposed to be a discussion then I understand where she's coming from.




/And so ends the one and only mod defence post coming from Marsh :o

[GoldHeart]

Who did?

And, no, I'm not googling it.

I don't recall supporting this for men or women so less of the lecturing tone. :hee:

Well in general like Vicky said people are making light of men having this done , i'm sure i saw a comment about sensitivity after male circumcision? .

I wasn't lecturing i'm just telling you . But Female one will always be alot worse as there's nothing to be removed it's literally mutilation and child abuse :umm2:, but at the same time it's debate able about the male one .

[thesheriff443]

Talking about it won't stop it I'm afraid.

[Marsh.]

Well in general like Vicky said people are making light of men having this done , i'm sure i saw a comment about sensitivity after male circumcision? .

I said it lessens sensitivity in the bell end after someone mentioned circumcised penises giving better sexual performance.

Neither of us joked about it though.

[Marsh.]

Talking about it won't stop it I'm afraid.

But, again, that's not Vicky's or my point. :unsure:

[GoldHeart]

I said it lessens sensitivity in the bell end after someone mentioned circumcised penises giving better sexual performance.

Neither of us joked about it though.

well that's true it does doesn't it ?, but i suppose if a guy had it done as a baby and has grown up use to it then it probably wouldn't be that much of a big deal to him but who knows ?.

But adults have this done aswell , i wonder if it feels weirder for them .

[thesheriff443]

It's not vicki's point it's my point, plus some men pay to have circumcisions and some women have their labi cut for the look

[Niamh.]

Wow. Iceland is picking a fight with two politically influential religions.I read somewhere that somewhere in the high 90's% of Icelanders don't believe in God so I doubt they're bothered

[Marsh.]

It's not vicki's point it's my point, plus some men pay to have circumcisions and some women have their labi cut for the look

No you were talking about Vicky not allowing jokes in a serious debate that "talking about it won't change it" when that wasn't her point when deleting the jokes.

[GoldHeart]

I read somewhere that somewhere in the high 90's% of Icelanders don't believe in God so I doubt they're bothered

I didn't actually know that , but it's not just religious reasons for having it done as some think it's "more hygienic" to have it done aswell .

Plenty of non religious people have it done for those silly hygiene reasons and because of cosmetic or medical reasons .

[Jamie89]

Good news. I think circumcision itself is fine if somebody chooses to have it done and it certainly can have health benefits (such as with HIV rates for example) so it's not really in the same league as FGM, but I'm strongly against it being done to babies, I think that aspect of it is barbaric, it's enforced mutilation, and even though there are benefits it still isn't necessary.

It's controversial? :/ I would have thought loads would agree that it's horrific, in fact I'm surprised it's not illegal tbh

My cousin had her daughters ears pierced around 1 or 2 and I was really shocked, but I was more shocked that noone else in my family seemed shocked by it at all. I was the odd one for being surprised by it :laugh: I mean it's not dangerous or anything but I'd never been aware of people doing that to babies so it just seemed completely bizarre to me. I had some piercings done as a teenager and I'm pretty sure I had to be over 16.

well that's true it does doesn't it ?, but i suppose if a guy had it done as a baby and has grown up use to it then it probably wouldn't be that much of a big deal to him but who knows ?.

But adults have this done aswell , i wonder if it feels weirder for them .

My ex had it done for medical reasons and aside from the pain from the operation, it was definitely different for him afterwards. Reaching orgasm was more difficult at first because he found he had to do certain things a bit differently. It wasn't worse though, just different, and something he got used to.

[Marsh.]

he had to do certain things a bit differentl.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/ij8AeeqXKFZm0/giphy.gif

[GoldHeart]

Good news. I think circumcision itself is fine if somebody chooses to have it done and it certainly can have health benefits (such as with HIV rates for example) so it's not really in the same league as FGM, but I'm strongly against it being done to babies, I think that aspect of it is barbaric, it's enforced mutilation, and even though there are benefits it still isn't necessary.




My cousin had her daughters ears pierced around 1 or 2 and I was really shocked, but I was more shocked that noone else in my family seemed shocked by it at all. I was the odd one for being surprised by it :laugh: I mean it's not dangerous or anything but I'd never been aware of people doing that to babies so it just seemed completely bizarre to me. I had some piercings done as a teenager and I'm pretty sure I had to be over 16.



My ex had it done for medical reasons and aside from the pain from the operation, it was definitely different for him afterwards. Reaching orgasm was more difficult at first because he found he had to do certain things a bit differently. It wasn't worse though, just different, and something he got used to.

Dare i ask what your ex had to do or is this conversation getting too explicit?? :omgno::whistle:


Yeah i've never understood why or how babies getting their ears pierced has been acceptable :conf: , plus how does the baby stay still and not cry their eyes out . I think it's better when they're grown up like 14 atleast to make their own decision to have it done .


How does it really make much difference though with HIV rates ??:conf: , surely no matter if you're circumcised or not if you're careless with your sexual partners then you're still risking yourself ? :shrug:.

[Jamie89]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/ij8AeeqXKFZm0/giphy.gif

:joker: :hehe:

Dare i ask what your ex had to do or is this conversation getting too explicit?? :omgno::whistle:


Yeah i've never understood why or how babies getting their ears pierced has been acceptable :conf: , plus how does the baby stay still and not cry their eyes out . I think it's better when they're grown up like 14 atleast to make their own decision to have it done .


How does it really make much difference though with HIV rates ??:conf: , surely no matter if you're circumcised or not if you're careless with your sexual partners then you're still risking yourself ? :shrug:.

Yeah that's fine, he had phimosis (where the foreskin doesn't retract properly). Circumcision wasn't necessary (although it was advised) and there were non surgical methods ie. stretching he could have tried to fix it, but he decided on circumcision. Stretching can also have dangers in weakening/tearing of the skin and also he just saw the circumcision as being more convenient.

It actually has a really big impact on HIV rates, it's most commonly transmitted through the foreskin rather than the penis which is why circumcised men have such lower rates of it (it can also be transmitted other ways it's just much rarer). But yeah that's not a reason imo to mutilate babies. Like you say there are other ways to prevent disease so it isn't a necessity.

[Jack_]

Good. Circumcision Male genital mutilation on children who are not capable of consenting is a disgrace. Parents do not own their child's body and aside from any life-threatening emergency surgery - the only person who should get to decide what they want to do with their own body is the person themselves. The same applies in many areas of life.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that ANY and ALL religious ceremonies, rituals or practices performed on children who are not yet mentally competent enough to understand and indeed consent to what's going on - should be outlawed. I don't care what YOU want to believe in, that's your prerogative, but stop forcing it on children who have no say in the matter. I was baptised as a child and whilst in the grand scheme of things it's not really important, I've always been pretty angry with my parents for doing it when I'm now an atheist. Keep ya kids out of religion. Let them think for themselves.

[Jamie89]

Oh wait I just realised you were asking what he had to do differently lmao... hmm it might be a bit too explicit I'm not sure :laugh: basically it was just with how he touched it/how I touched it, there's practical differences with not having a foreskin, as well as that you're losing some nerves and exposing other nerves which makes how and where you touch differently too.

@Goldheart^^

[Morgan.]

I was circumcised for medical reasons and personally I feel like that's the only time it should be performed.

[GoldHeart]

Oh wait I just realised you were asking what he had to do differently lmao... hmm it might be a bit too explicit I'm not sure :laugh: basically it was just with how he touched it/how I touched it, there's practical differences with not having a foreskin, as well as that you're losing some nerves and exposing other nerves which makes how and where you touch differently too.

@Goldheart^^

I knew you misunderstood what i said at first but i wasn't going to ask you again :hee:, but now i know so that's ok i figured you'd have to do different things as it must feel strange :whistle: .

[y.winter]

And yeah, the babies cry of course. They do tend to give them a tiny bit of wine on the lips (just a touch) to ease the pain. Still weird.

But there's nothing really special in having it that way...

[rk3388]

I'm surprised by all the people calling it mutilation- I think it's a UK thing maybe. Babies do not remember the procedure at all and it actually helps keep that region clean. I don't know why people have any issues with it - If "people were to make their own decision when they're adults" which a lot of you were saying that would be a more painful experience and more traumatic.

[rk3388]

^ To add to that the only negative is pain which babies forget about when they're older anyway, and the pros are a reduction in STDs, cancer rates, bacterial growth etc etc so I think it's ridiculous to ban

[Marsh.]

I'm surprised by all the people calling it mutilation- I think it's a UK thing maybe. Babies do not remember the procedure at all and it actually helps keep that region clean. I don't know why people have any issues with it - If "people were to make their own decision when they're adults" which a lot of you were saying that would be a more painful experience and more traumatic.

I don't think them remembering it is the issue.

And as for the "hygiene" reason, that's rubbish. Uncut penises are perfectly fine, as long as the person with that penis is hygienic and washes properly.

I think I read somewhere once that Islam says "excrements" could collect under the foreskin and cause cancer. :joker: No actual evidence for this whatsoever.

It's almost like saying "Let's cut people's arms off because it gets very sweaty and dirty in their armpit otherwise. As opposed to, you know, lifting your arm up and having a wash". :hehe:

[Kizzy]

It's abuse, for whatever reason it's abuse they don't consent they are too young taking bits off a boy, putting holes in ears all abuse. Glad it's banned.

[Twosugars]

I read somewhere that somewhere in the high 90's% of Icelanders don't believe in God so I doubt they're bothered

Agreed. I said in another post that they may get away with it because of their small population with few orthodox Muslims and Jews.
But those religions will kick up the fuss about it internationally. If you google news you'll see the battle has started. They talk about the ban as a sign of antisemitism and islamophobia, attack on religion and attempt to extinguish Jewish and Muslim life in Iceland. It's all quite hysterical (read below where they cite that the procedure was banned by the Nazis). Iceland is small but they know very well this law could become a precedent and an example for other countries esp. in Europe, to follow suit. And so they want to, erm, nip it in the bud.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/circumcision-ban-will-prevent-jewish-life-in-iceland-leaders-warn/
Circumcision ban will prevent Jewish life in Iceland, leaders warn
Scandinavian Jews say outlawing religious ritual 'will guarantee' that no community is established there

The leaders of the Jewish communities of four Nordic countries said that a bill proposing to ban nonmedical circumcision in Iceland “will guarantee” that no Jewish community is established there.

The presidents of the umbrella groups of Jewish communities in Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland issued the unusual warning Tuesday in an open letter to all Icelandic lawmakers in reaction to the submission last month of a bill proposing to ban all nonmedical circumcision of boys younger than 18 in Iceland, a Scandinavian island nation of some 300,000 people with a few hundred Jews and Muslims.

Lawmakers from four parties with 46 percent of the seats in parliament, including the ruling party, co-authored the bill.

If passed, “Iceland would be the only country to ban one of the most central, if not the most central rite in the Jewish tradition in modern times,” wrote Aron Verständig, Dan Rosenberg-Asmussen, Ervin Kohn and Yaron Nadbornik in the letter.

Referencing the Nazi prohibition on brit milah, Jewish ritual circumcision, they noted: “It would not be the first time in the long tradition of the Jewish people. Throughout history, more than one oppressive regime has tried to suppress our people and eradicate Judaism by prohibiting our religious practices.”

Iceland, they added, does not have an organized Jewish community today.

Iceland is slated this year to receive its first resident rabbi in decades.

The open letter might be perceived as meddling in Iceland’s internal affairs, the co-authors conceded.

“And why should we care? The reason is that you are about to attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world,” they wrote.

The Nordic Jewish community leaders urged the Icelandic lawmakers to follow Norway’s 2015 legislation on nonmedical circumcision, which introduced regulation while ensuring the custom’s legality under certain terms.

In Europe, circumcision is under attack from right-wing politicians who view it as a foreign import whose proliferation is often associated mostly with Muslim immigration. And it is also opposed by left-wing liberals and atheists who denounce it as a primitive form of child abuse.

[Morgan.]

I was 3/4 when circumcised (for medical reasons) and I still remember every moment of the pain for the 2ish weeks after - everything stinging so badly when I took a piss that I literally used to lie about not needing the toilet so I wouldn't have to go through the pain.

Obviously now I realise that I'd have rathered do that than whatever the issue was before but there's no doubt I can still remember that pain from 13ish years ago when I was 3/4.

[GoldHeart]

I was 3/4 when circumcised (for medical reasons) and I still remember every moment of the pain for the 2ish weeks after - everything stinging so badly when I took a piss that I literally used to lie about not needing the toilet so I wouldn't have to go through the pain.

Obviously now I realise that I'd have rathered do that than whatever the issue was before but there's no doubt I can still remember that pain from 13ish years ago when I was 3/4.

Jeez sounds like agony :umm2::worry: , this is why I don't understand why people have it done for "cosmetic reasons" why put yourself through that pain willingly. It's not like going to the hairdressers for a haircut .

[Morgan.]

Jeez sounds like agony :umm2::worry: , this is why I don't understand why people have it done for "cosmetic reasons" why put yourself through that pain willingly. It's not like going to the hairdressers for a haircut .

Honestly it was terrible, and at the time I had no idea what it was for, I was too young to understand.

[GoldHeart]

Honestly it was terrible, and at the time I had no idea what it was for, I was too young to understand.

That's bad but if it was for medical reasons do you think it was worth it ?. And now looking back would you rather of had it as an adult or are you glad you had it as a child, and got it out the way despite the pain ? :worry: .

[Beso]

Noooo, not thier onion rings!!

[Jessica.]

Yeah, I don't think it should be allowed on children anywhere unless there's a medical reason for it. It's a very outdated practice.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'm surprised by all the people calling it mutilation- I think it's a UK thing maybe. Babies do not remember the procedure at all and it actually helps keep that region clean. I don't know why people have any issues with it - If "people were to make their own decision when they're adults" which a lot of you were saying that would be a more painful experience and more traumatic.

It does not help keep any region clean, you may as well say remove all their teeth to protect against tooth decay. There is no medical evidence of note that would suggest it is a good idea and that is precisely why no doctor would ever suggest it be done to a healthy child.

[waterhog]

was going to do a poem on this but just going to say it in a statement that will be less effective -

if Iceland try to ban all men then are circumcised they will have a discrimination case against them and I am sure sales will take a snip.

no good at comedy - going back to poetry :laugh:

[bots]

It's not much different to the practice of docking dogs tails, and that has been banned for years

[Niamh.]

I'm surprised by all the people calling it mutilation- I think it's a UK thing maybe. Babies do not remember the procedure at all and it actually helps keep that region clean. I don't know why people have any issues with it - If "people were to make their own decision when they're adults" which a lot of you were saying that would be a more painful experience and more traumatic.

It's not a UK thing, it's pretty much everywhere in the western world besides North America thing :laugh: You don't cut bits of your body off to keep them clean, such odd logic

[Jessica.]

I don't think ear piercing is as bad, because you are not messing with someones genitals, but I do think it's unnecessary, it's better to just wait for the kid to ask for that. Babies and little kids already have to go through necessary pain with the heal prick for example and vaccines, so it's really a bit cruel to put them through cosmetic procedures..

[Morgan.]

That's bad but if it was for medical reasons do you think it was worth it ?. And now looking back would you rather of had it as an adult or are you glad you had it as a child, and got it out the way despite the pain ? :worry: .

Oh yes definitley preferred to have it as a child than an adult because I can only imagine how clearer the pain would be in my mind, if what I went through as a child is still there.

[Robertocarlo]

Yeah, I don't think it should be allowed on children anywhere unless there's a medical reason for it. It's a very outdated practice.

Here, here. It's as barbaric as Female Genital Mutilation. Totally unnecessary unless for medical reasons.

[Vicky.]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/male-circumcision-baby-goodluck

Such gruesome deaths following circumcision may be rare in the UK, but non-fatal complications are anything but. Manchester Royal Children's hospital reports that it treats around three cases of bleeding circumcisions every month. In 2009 alone, in one hospital in Birmingham, 105 boys were treated at A&E for complications after circumcisions. One per month had life-threatening injuries. In June, a letter to the newsletter of the British Association for Community Child Health reported on some of the injuries caused by unlicensed circumcision practitioners in the Bristol area. They included a fractured skull caused by a baby falling off a kitchen table during a home circumcision.

An audit of circumcisions conducted at an Islamic school in Oxford, and reported in the Journal of Public Health this year, revealed that 45% of boys had suffered complications. All these examples have one common feature: they were conducted in non-clinical conditions. While it is illegal to tattoo a child in the UK, there is no law to prevent anyone from setting up a business in permanently slicing the sensitive, delicate skin from boys' genitals without anaesthetic. In Rusholme, Manchester, there is a notice on a first floor window offering circumcisions, quite literally in a backstreet above a kebab shop. This is utterly obscene.

In New York recently, it emerged that 11 babies in as many years had contracted herpes during their circumcisions, of whom two died and two more suffered brain damage. The infection was caused by the Orthodox ritual of metzitzah b'peh, in which the mohel puts his mouth directly on the baby's bleeding penis and sucks the wound clean. There is no way of knowing the extent to which the same practice is being employed in the UK, but there is nothing to legally proscribe it.

People on my friends list are saying circumcision is harmless and such.

Even if it WAS harmless, its still cutting off a piece of another persons body without their consent.

[GoldHeart]

It's also a bit silly to assume it's "cleaner" when it's done ,when its down to your personal hygiene whether you have it done or not . If you have it done and never wash then it hasn't made a difference :facepalm: ,and if you don't have it then you just have to wash properly .

People say the same thing with pubes, if you get rid of them it's "cleaner" , but again it's your own personal hygiene but it makes sense to get rid of pubes more .

[Twosugars]

We can fume and quote all the evidence in the world and it won't make any difference. It is a religious practice, end of, and it won't be banned.
The best we can hope for is some medical supervision or licencing of practitioners like it is done in Sweden and few other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

[Crimson Dynamo]

We can fume and quote all the evidence in the world and it won't make any difference. It is a religious practice, end of, and it won't be banned.
The best we can hope for is some medical supervision or licencing of practitioners like it is done in Sweden and few other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

yes it will, religion is drastically dying out in the modern world and this vile practice will do the same

[GoldHeart]

We can fume and quote all the evidence in the world and it won't make any difference. It is a religious practice, end of, and it won't be banned.
The best we can hope for is some medical supervision or licencing of practitioners like it is done in Sweden and few other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law

This is what I hope for too , that they seek medical supervision and take health precautions for the safety of the babies they're so fragile . They can't afford to risk infections or complications :worry: .

[Twosugars]

yes it will, religion is drastically dying out in the modern world and this vile practice will do the same
time will tell, Trumpet
but first let's see how Iceland fares with this.
They are not the first to try, you know. All previous attempts by supposedly modern and not religious countries ended in a climbdown and a compromise to allow religious circumcision, so I'm not holding my breath

[Twosugars]

The Bible (Genesis) says:
And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you.
http://biblehub.com/genesis/17-11.htm



I guess it's lucky God didn't ask for more, like some fingers or an arm

[Vicky.]

But why would God make men with foreskins if God wanted them not to have them :suspect:

[GoldHeart]

But why would God make men with foreskins if God wanted them not to have them :suspect:

It's not just religious reasons why people have it done though :shrug: ,and as we all know people interpret religious scriptures whichever way they want . You don't necessarily have to take everything LITERALLY .

[Vicky.]

No, its not just religious reasons.

But still, it should not be done on babies without a medical need for it to be done. As babies cannot consent to having parts of their penis chopped off. I actually just watched a video of a circumcision, and am even more against it D: I knew what the video was (was posted elsewhere) but curiosity got the better of me..and that poor child :( Guy who did it also sucked the blood off. So parents watched while a stranger chopped a part of their baby off, unnecessarily..and then sucked its penis. Its just..gross.

[rk3388]

I don't think them remembering it is the issue.

And as for the "hygiene" reason, that's rubbish. Uncut penises are perfectly fine, as long as the person with that penis is hygienic and washes properly.

I think I read somewhere once that Islam says "excrements" could collect under the foreskin and cause cancer. :joker: No actual evidence for this whatsoever.

It's almost like saying "Let's cut people's arms off because it gets very sweaty and dirty in their armpit otherwise. As opposed to, you know, lifting your arm up and having a wash". :hehe:

Actually no, it's not like saying that at all :conf::conf::conf:

The piece of skin doesn't benefit anyone's life in anyway. And no it is not rubbish because not everyone who is uncircumcised has good hygiene- and that is what increases the risk of cancer.

[rk3388]

Here, here. It's as barbaric as Female Genital Mutilation. Totally unnecessary unless for medical reasons.

female circumcision is a whole other topic- you can not relate the two

[Twosugars]

It's not just religious reasons why people have it done though :shrug: ,and as we all know people interpret religious scriptures whichever way they want . You don't necessarily have to take everything LITERALLY .
Very true. This passage is in all different Bible versions, but afaik, Christians don't consider circumcision necessary. But Muslims and Jews do. Go figure :shrug:

[rk3388]

At the end of the day it is up to the parents. Living in N. America I have never met anyone who regretted or got mad that they were circumsised.

Yes babies can't "consent" to it, but babies can also not consent to being fed or getting enough sleep. That's a ridiculous argument for why people should be against it.

Completely up to the parents- You should respect their choice to have their baby circumsised or not.

[Vicky.]

Actually no, it's not like saying that at all :conf::conf::conf:

The piece of skin doesn't benefit anyone's life in anyway. And no it is not rubbish because not everyone who is uncircumcised has good hygiene- and that is what increases the risk of cancer.

OK, how about cutting earlobes off newborns, as earlobes do not benefit anyones life in anyway and some people may not clean behind their ears so it would improve their hygiene later in life? Blobulas the god of ears demands it.

Also foreskin does actually make a big difference. A lot of circumcised guys say that they lose sensitivity in their dick when circumcised.

[Twosugars]

But why would God make men with foreskins if God wanted them not to have them :suspect:

To tell "his" people apart, i.e. test/sign of faith, etc

[Vicky.]

Completely up to the parents- You should respect their choice to have their baby circumsised or not.

The parents do not own the childs body. I find this attitude quite shocking tbh. The child should, when old enough, be able to decide if they wish to have body parts lopped off unnecessarily or not.

I would be willing to put a very large bet on that if it was adult males deciding for themselves if they want part of their dick removed, the practise would die out pretty quickly. but its fine,m as its imposed on babies and they cannot remember it. Which is, again a ****ty way to look at it.

[Vicky.]

I have never met anyone who regretted or got mad that they were circumsised.



Do you often discuss your penis with people you meet?

https://www.yourwholebaby.org/men-speak-out/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/

I cannot imagine it being a big talking point, tbh

[Marsh.]

Actually no, it's not like saying that at all :conf::conf::conf:

The piece of skin doesn't benefit anyone's life in anyway. And no it is not rubbish because not everyone who is uncircumcised has good hygiene- and that is what increases the risk of cancer.
Not everyone has good hygiene full stop.

That's a problem that resolves itself by being hygienic, not lopping skin off because they can't be arsed to bloody wash.

And foreskin has all kinds of uses. Artificial lubricants are big sellers in the US because the man's natural moist maker is dried up. :idc:

[Jamie89]

The foreskin does a lot more than I realised :laugh: I just googled this...

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

2. Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].

3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response [5].

4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see illustration]. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6].

5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.

7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development [1].

8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21].

9. Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation and 14-16, 18].

10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.

11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].

12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].

13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function together smoothly.

14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].

15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].

16. Zero risk of serious infection or surgical injury. Unfortunate boys who suffer botched circumcisions lose part or all of their penis from surgical mishap or subsequent infection. They are often "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery." They are relegated to a life of hormone therapy and are compelled to live their lives as pseudo-females, the success of which has never been fully assessed [24-46].

17. Zero risk of death from surgery. Every year boy die from the complications of circumcision, a fact that the American circumcision industry ignores, obscures, or downplays [29-31].

18. Zero risk of delayed or diminished maternal bonding. Circumcision, even if anesthesia is used, causes unavoidable operative trauma and post-operative pain that has been shown to disrupt bonding with the mother, which in turn interferes with the first developmental task of every human, that of trust (trust in human contact, in personal safety, etc) [47-51].

19. Electromagnetic "cross-communication." Anecdotal reports suggest that, without the mucosa of its foreskin, the penis lacks the capacity for the subtle electromagentic energy transfer that occurs during contact between two mucous membranes (the vaginal walls and the exposed inner lining of the foreskin). Such contact contributes to the full experience of sexual pleasure. These reports deserve further scientific study.



Some of this is to do with sexual pleasure and to be fair a man who was circumcised as a baby wouldn't know any different and it just makes for a slightly different experience, but I don't think there is evidence of circumcised men being more prone to sexual dysfunction, so I take most of that with a pinch of salt. Still interesting stuff though.

[GoldHeart]

Very true. This passage is in all different Bible versions, but afaik, Christians don't consider circumcision necessary. But Muslims and Jews do. Go figure :shrug:

Yeah Muslims & Jews have similar views . They both are against eating pork aswell .

[Marsh.]

OK, how about cutting earlobes off newborns, as earlobes do not benefit anyones life in anyway and some people may not clean behind their ears so it would improve their hygiene later in life? Blobulas the god of ears demands it.

Also foreskin does actually make a big difference. A lot of circumcised guys say that they lose sensitivity in their dick when circumcised.
They do. The foreskin helps keep it moist (aiding penetration) and preserve sensation in the gland. Cut it off and you get dry and numb dicks in desperate need of lube. :smug:

[Marsh.]

To tell "his" people apart, i.e. test/sign of faith, etc
:laugh2:

He couldn't just give them a clear sign like a cross on the forehead? He needed to give them differing genitalia?

[GoldHeart]

Do you often discuss your penis with people you meet?

https://www.yourwholebaby.org/men-speak-out/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
http://www.bloodstainedmen.com/

I cannot imagine it being a big talking point, tbh

Certainly not over drinks or dinner :umm2:

[GoldHeart]

:laugh2:

He couldn't just give them a clear sign like a cross on the forehead? He needed to give them differing genitalia?

A cross on the forehead yes they do that on ash Wednesday but it rubs off as it's not a permanent mark , hope you don't mean scarification?! :umm2: .

It's up to people how they interpret this, and you'll find it's usually Muslims & Jews that circumcise , its not that common in Christianity .

As i said personal hygiene is what keeps it clean ,doesn't matter if it's circumcised or not if you never wash then that's on you .

[Marsh.]

A cross on the forehead yes they do that on ash Wednesday but it rubs off as it's not a permanent mark , hope you don't mean scarification?! :umm2: .

It's up to people how they interpret this, and you'll find it's usually Muslims & Jews that circumcise , its not that frequent in Christianity .

As i said personal hygiene is what keeps it clean ,doesn't matter if it's circumcised or not if you never wash then that's on you .
I was being facetious. [emoji23]

[GoldHeart]

I was being facetious. [emoji23]

I figured as much :idc: . But like i said it's up to them with their faith and beliefs , i just hope they take the proper health advice and supervision.

[Marsh.]

I figured as much :idc: . But like i said it's up to them with their faith and beliefs , i just hope they take the proper health advice and supervision.
Oh I agree it's completely up to them.

But I won't allow them to make stuff up like it being cleaner when it's bollocks. [emoji23]

[MTVN]

I'm surprised people are so strongly against it. There's a quarter of a million Jews in the UK, to make circumcision illegal would be considered a huge attack on that part of British society

[GoldHeart]

Oh I agree it's completely up to them.

But I won't allow them to make stuff up like it being cleaner when it's bollocks. [emoji23]

I think some of them worry their kids wont wash it properly :facepalm: , so they do this as some quick fix but you still have to clean yourself properly no matter what :shrug: .

[Vicky.]

I don't see how it would be considered an attack, rather than defending the rights of babies not to have parts chopped off on the whims of their parents. It would not be banned completely, adult men would have the choice to get it done if they wanted to :shrug:

Fairly sure not many would chose to have it done though

[Marsh.]

I think some of them worry their kids wont wash it properly :facepalm: , so they do this as some quick fix but you still have to clean yourself properly no matter what :shrug: .
I don't think they have much to worry about until the child is older and they start to produce bodily... things. By that point if they're not hygienic they're a dirty bastard and need to sort it out. :nono:

Young kids foreskin is actually fused to the gland and isn't retractable.

[Jamie89]

Yeah the religious freedom argument is deeply flawed, a baby can't decide or communicate their religion or give consent, you can't use your own right to religious freedom to impose unnecessary surgery onto another person. Babies are entitled to human rights as much as their parents are entitled to their right of religious belief. Banning circumcision for infants isn't stopping anyone from believing anything.

[GoldHeart]

I don't think they have much to worry about until the child is older and they start to produce bodily... things. By that point if they're not hygienic they're a dirty bastard and need to sort it out. :nono:

Young kids foreskin is actually fused to the gland and isn't retractable.

Did you also know that it's used in some face creams and moisturisers :yuk:.

Like i said its personal hygiene, all of us are told to wash properly from a young age and if we don't then that's our problem .

I think some people are glad they had it done as a child and got it out the way , but obviously the thought of it doesn't sound pleasant for them :worry:.

[MTVN]

Babies aren't able to make decisions about literally anything though, they can't choose the religion they're brought up as, they can't choose whether they're fed meat, they can't choose if their parents smoke or drink around them, they can't choose if they're breastfed etc. etc. There's a million and one decisions that parents can make or not make which have an impact on a baby's body and their life

[Marsh.]

Did you also know that it's used in some face creams and moisturisers :yuk:.

Like i said its personal hygiene, all of us are told to wash properly from a young age and if we don't then that's our problem .

I think some people are glad they had it done as a child and got it out the way , but obviously the thought of it doesn't sound pleasant for them :worry:.
What's in moisturisers and face creams? D:

Not a crusty nib.

[Marsh.]

Babies aren't able to make decisions about literally anything though, they can't choose the religion they're brought up as, they can't choose whether they're fed meat, they can't choose if their parents smoke or drink around them, they can't choose if they're breastfed etc. etc. There's a million and one decisions that parents can make or not make which have an impact on a baby's body and their life
Yes and things that bring harm are considered not ok. Smoking, drinking and physically harming the child.

I know people don't regard it the same but I see it as physical harm to a child for no reason.

[MTVN]

Yes and things that bring harm are considered not ok. Smoking, drinking and physically harming the child.

I know people don't regard it the same but I see it as physical harm to a child for no reason.

Ok but some people would also claim that not allowing a child meat or not breastfeeding harms a child and some would say the opposite

[Marsh.]

Ok but some people would also claim that not allowing a child meat or not breastfeeding harms a child and some would say the opposite
There's no actual harm though.

There's arguments that breastfeeding can "improve" the child in some ways.

But that doesn't equate to no breastfeeding being harmful in anyway.

Like driving a car to work is a benefit to getting to work, but managing to get to work without that benefit is not harmful. You still got to work. [emoji23] if that makes sense?

[Marsh.]

Not to mention breastfeeding is natural. The mother produces milk purely to feed her child.

There is no "natural" phenomenon that means foreskins must be removed. If anything, nature is in support of foreskin and it's uses.

[MTVN]

There's no actual harm though.

There's arguments that breastfeeding can "improve" the child in some ways.

But that doesn't equate to no breastfeeding being harmful in anyway.

Like driving a car to work is a benefit to getting to work, but managing without that benefit is not harmful. [emoji23] if that makes sense?

I'm gonna admit to being pretty unknowledgeable on these things but a quick Google search brings this article up for example where it is considered harmful

'For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812877/

[Marsh.]

I'm gonna admit to being pretty unknowledgeable on these things but a quick Google search brings this article up for example where it is considered harmful

'For infants, not being breastfed is associated with an increased incidence of infectious morbidity, as well as elevated risks of childhood obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812877/
I can't say I've read too much into that but pointing out a trend or pattern isn't usually conclusive proof of something.

Research is probably ongoing.

They always have things like that to share, like those with longer legs are subject to achy feet. :hehe:

[GoldHeart]

What's in moisturisers and face creams? D:

Not a crusty nib.

https://www.babygaga.com/15-shocking-uses-for-infant-foreskin/

[Marsh.]

"Healing properties"

But let's take that off your sensitive genitalia so there's no healing properties!!!!! :oh:

[MTVN]

I can't say I've read too much into that but pointing out a trend or pattern isn't usually conclusive proof of something.

Research is probably ongoing.

They always have things like that to share, like those with longer legs are subject to achy feet. :hehe:

Research is probably ongoing into circumcision as well though. I mean this is just another result of a Google search but:

The American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.

"There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision," said Susan Blank, who led the 14-member task force that formulated*the new policy*being published in the journal*Pediatrics.

The statement, and accompanying*technical report, marks the first revision of the organization's position since 1999, when the academy backed away from circumcision

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatricians-decide-boys-are-better-off-circumcised-than-not

Now I'm not saying I support circumcision and I'm glad that I was not circumcised (although I don't think my life would be much different if I was) but to actually make something illegal is a serious step

[Marsh.]

My phone is gonna die in like 90 seconds. I'll have a read when I'm home. [emoji23]

[Jamie89]

Babies aren't able to make decisions about literally anything though, they can't choose the religion they're brought up as, they can't choose whether they're fed meat, they can't choose if their parents smoke or drink around them, they can't choose if they're breastfed etc. etc. There's a million and one decisions that parents can make or not make which have an impact on a baby's body and their life

That's my point though, they can't yet choose their religion or what religious practices to follow, therefore there is no reason to force painful and unnecessary surgery onto them because of somebody else's religion. When they are old enough they might decide not to follow the religion, or they might choose to follow it but not all of it's practices, or they might decide to follow it and be circumcised. That would be up to them.

I don't buy into the argument that it's better for them to go through the pain as a baby since they won't remember it. They still feel the pain. We don't accept abuse of babies on the basis they won't remember it. And someone who is older may remember the pain, but it doesn't stay with them, they don't experience lifelong trauma, being able to remember it really doesn't make all that much difference to somebody - circumcision on the other hand is lifelong. And adults are better equipped to deal with pain and understand why it's happening to them, a baby isn't able to understand or deal with this kind of thing.

[user104658]

People massively overcomplicate this issue, and also make far too much of the "glorious foreskins!" arguments... anyone would think it was a slightly freudian issue :joker:. And don't get me started on these "intactivist" websites :facepalm:. For a start, they're populated 90% by The Angry Mums Of Facebook, spouting really odd things about their son's "perfect intact penises" :umm2:. I swear they probably have foreskin statues decorating their houses. It's an odd, odd group of people.

As for the issue itself, it's a fairly simple one.

- Removal of the foreskin does make some difference to sensitivity

- And can OCCASIONALLY lead to lubrication issues if things are a bit "dry anyway"

- ...but the differences between cut and uncut penises are hugely exaggerated. In most cases, there is very little difference in terms of sensation or function, and claims to the contrary are sensationalist.

- Circumcision does significantly lower the risk of contracting an STI, and especially HIV..

- However that's not HUGELY relevant IMO because anyone having "risky" sex (unprotected sex with partners who they aren't fairly certain are clean) should obviously be using protection anyway.


BUT

- No, parents should NOT have the right to permanently modify their children's bodies in ANY way unless there is a valid medical reason to do so.

- At age 18 it can then be totally down to the individual, like any other body modification (piercings, tattoos, etc).

[Marsh.]

In the same way condoms reduce risk, celibacy severely cuts the risk. But nobody has either of those forced onto them either.

I don't think parents are cutting their baby's foreskin off to save them from a future risk of HIV.

Of course, I agree over exaggerating how wonderful foreskin is, is just a bit much. But the NetMums type people I can't stomach at the best of times.

[bots]

People massively overcomplicate this issue, and also make far too much of the "glorious foreskins!" arguments... anyone would think it was a slightly freudian issue :joker:. And don't get me started on these "intactivist" websites :facepalm:. For a start, they're populated 90% by The Angry Mums Of Facebook, spouting really odd things about their son's "perfect intact penises" :umm2:. I swear they probably have foreskin statues decorating their houses. It's an odd, odd group of people.

As for the issue itself, it's a fairly simple one.

- Removal of the foreskin does make some difference to sensitivity

- And can OCCASIONALLY lead to lubrication issues if things are a bit "dry anyway"

- ...but the differences between cut and uncut penises are hugely exaggerated. In most cases, there is very little difference in terms of sensation or function, and claims to the contrary are sensationalist.

- Circumcision does significantly lower the risk of contracting an STI, and especially HIV..

- However that's not HUGELY relevant IMO because anyone having "risky" sex (unprotected sex with partners who they aren't fairly certain are clean) should obviously be using protection anyway.


BUT

- No, parents should NOT have the right to permanently modify their children's bodies in ANY way unless there is a valid medical reason to do so.

- At age 18 it can then be totally down to the individual, like any other body modification (piercings, tattoos, etc).

Its mutilation of a vulnerable helpless individual. Would it be acceptable to carve a big J on their forehead at the same time? It's a weird sexual perversion to do that to a helpless child and it should be banned.

[Headie]

I was circumcised as a baby and it's literally not a big deal at all, don't get what the fuss is about :shrug: If the parents want their baby to be circumcised, it isn't hurting anyone, just the same as it isn't hurting anyone if they don;t get circumcised :shrug:

[Ammi]

Babies aren't able to make decisions about literally anything though, they can't choose the religion they're brought up as, they can't choose whether they're fed meat, they can't choose if their parents smoke or drink around them, they can't choose if they're breastfed etc. etc. There's a million and one decisions that parents can make or not make which have an impact on a baby's body and their life

..yeah parents do make choices for their children, MTVN...because babies/children aren’t able to do that...but the choice of a religion is changeable, it’s not permanent when a child becomes an adult...and the same with diet lifestyle choices, even before reaching adulthood...parents can and often do still give choices to an older child, but with a small child...they may be brought up with a parental choice, which has been chosen for themselves...circumcision isn’t changeable when adulthood is reached, it’s permanent and can’t be ‘undone’ so that’s obviously why some feel quite strongly about it because it takes away ‘Possible future choice’ from a baby, which is felt to be important../yeah, smoking/drinking etc can also remove future choices as well if they cause harm to a baby..but they’re still slightly different in that they’re choosing for themselves but could have a direct affect on...?...as opposed to something done directly to the child and only the child, which circumcision is, with no involvement of personal choice for a parent’s own lifestyle...

[Crimson Dynamo]

300,000 years of natural selection and evolution versus some bronze aged superstition


Its a home win for me

:joker:

[MTVN]

..yeah parents do make choices for their children, MTVN...because babies/children aren’t able to do that...but the choice of a religion is changeable, it’s not permanent when a child becomes an adult...and the same with diet lifestyle choices, even before reaching adulthood...parents can and often do still give choices to an older child, but with a small child...they may be brought up with a parental choice, which has been chosen for themselves...circumcision isn’t changeable when adulthood is reached, it’s permanent and can’t be ‘undone’ so that’s obviously why some feel quite strongly about it because it takes away ‘Possible future choice’ from a baby, which is felt to be important../yeah, smoking/drinking etc can also remove future choices as well if they cause harm to a baby..but they’re still slightly different in that they’re choosing for themselves but could have a direct affect on...?...as opposed to something done directly to the child and only the child, which circumcision is, with no involvement of personal choice for a parent’s own lifestyle...

Some of the things I mentioned could arguably do more damage to a child than circumcision though. We've heard from two members in this thread who say it has not affected their life at all and I suspect that's the same for the vast majority of circumcised people. In the end whether you agree with it or not you have to ask if its right to make it illegal because some people don't like the idea when it's such an important custom of a large group of our society.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Some of the things I mentioned could arguably do more damage to a child than circumcision though. We've heard from two members in this thread who say it has not affected their life at all and I suspect that's the same for the vast majority of circumcised people. In the end whether you agree with it or not you have to ask if its right to make it illegal because some people don't like the idea when it's such an important custom of a large group of our society.

Can you explain why and how do you know its a "important custom"?

[MTVN]

Can you explain why and how do you know its a "important custom"?

Circumcision is an initiation rite for Jewish newborn babies. This usually takes place in a ceremony called a Brit (or Bris) milah witnessed by family and community members. Milah is Hebrew for Covenant of Circumcision.

The ritual is an ancient practice that has been carried out by Jewish parents for more than 3,000 years.

Such is the importance of Brit milah that circumcision can take place on the Sabbath or a holy day even though the drawing of blood is not normally allowed on these days under Jewish law.

According to the Torah (Genesis 17: 9-14), Abraham was commanded by God to circumcise himself, all male members of his household, his descendants and slaves in an everlasting covenant.

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.

Under Jewish law, failure to follow the commandment given to Abraham incurs the penalty of karet (being cut off from the rest of the community of God).

The Torah (Genesis 16:14) also says: "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreksin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/circumcision_1.shtml

[Ammi]

Some of the things I mentioned could arguably do more damage to a child than circumcision though. We've heard from two members in this thread who say it has not affected their life at all and I suspect that's the same for the vast majority of circumcised people. In the end whether you agree with it or not you have to ask if its right to make it illegal because some people don't like the idea when it's such an important custom of a large group of our society.

..it is quite a tricky/complicated one so I’m going to sit on the fence a bit with the banning of or making illegal..:laugh:..because either way it removes choice, to make illegal is to remove choice of cultures and customs etc in the same way as circumcision removes choice...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Circumcision is an initiation rite for Jewish newborn babies. This usually takes place in a ceremony called a Brit (or Bris) milah witnessed by family and community members. Milah is Hebrew for Covenant of Circumcision.

The ritual is an ancient practice that has been carried out by Jewish parents for more than 3,000 years.

Such is the importance of Brit milah that circumcision can take place on the Sabbath or a holy day even though the drawing of blood is not normally allowed on these days under Jewish law.

According to the Torah (Genesis 17: 9-14), Abraham was commanded by God to circumcise himself, all male members of his household, his descendants and slaves in an everlasting covenant.

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.

Under Jewish law, failure to follow the commandment given to Abraham incurs the penalty of karet (being cut off from the rest of the community of God).

The Torah (Genesis 16:14) also says: "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreksin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/jewishethics/circumcision_1.shtml

yes so nothing more than a nasty superstition to keep people in a club and make them feel special and different.

Perhaps they could ditch this and wear a ring or wear their hair in a special way?


:idc:

[user104658]

300,000 years of natural selection and evolution versus some bronze aged superstition


Its a home win for me

:joker:

To be fair it's not even really as simple as that, as the primary function of the foreskin in evolutionary terms would have been to protect the glans and the urethra from injury. So unless you're partial to running around the wilderness with your junk out, it's not as clear cut ( :hehe: ) as that.

... ... ... ... Then again, I have heard one or two stories about you LT so maybe it IS relevant. The term "Furries" came up :worry:.

[Niamh.]

..it is quite a tricky/complicated one so I’m going to sit on the fence a bit with the banning of or making illegal..:laugh:..because either way it removes choice, to make illegal is to remove choice of cultures and customs etc in the same way as circumcision removes choice...

yes but should a parent have the right to choose to remove part of their babies body with no medical reason though? Should that choice not be up to the boy when he gets old enough to choose himself?

[thesheriff443]

It's like having chicken with the skin on or off, it's still chicken at the end off the day.

Never heard anyone say my life would be so different if I had a forskin.

[Crimson Dynamo]

What if I start a religion and say that my God told me to remove girl babies earlobes.

It sounds crazy but it is NO different to any other made up religion, like Judaism

My new religion is called LTism.

[thesheriff443]

What if I start a religion and say that my God told me to remove girl babies earlobes.

It sounds crazy but it is NO different to any other made up religion, like Judaism

My new religion is called LTism.

The only people that will follow you around will be in white coats my dear boy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The only people that will follow you around will be in white coats my dear boy.

indeed as that will be part of the uniform

[thesheriff443]

indeed as that will be part of the uniform

What are you going to do with the ear lobes that you remove?

[Crimson Dynamo]

What are you going to do with the ear lobes that you remove?

burn them and offer them as a sacrifice to the Great Trumpet God

[thesheriff443]

burn them and offer them as a sacrifice to the Great Trumpet God

Can see that falling on death ears.

[user104658]

yes but should a parent have the right to choose to remove part of their babies body with no medical reason though? Should that choice not be up to the boy when he gets old enough to choose himself?

Well exactly, I don't see why it's a huge leap for the religions that have it as a tradition to make it that it's something that people can choose to do at 18, when they are adults capable of making that choice. Not least because they may well have decided by that point that they're non-religious...

Also, in terms of the procedure itself, the foreskin is actually attached to the glans at birth and removal at that point is far more "dramatic" a procedure... and it being done to infants is actually what causes a lot of the problems that some experience (scarring / loss of sensation) because it has to be forcibly "peeled away" from the head of the penis. It doesn't start to detach until about age 3... most are fully detached by ages 5 or 6 but for some it doesn't even start to detach until puberty. It should DEFINITELY have detached by 18 - meaning that foreskin removal at age 18 would have far fewer risks, as well as the consent issue. It just makes sense :shrug:.

[Ammi]

yes but should a parent have the right to choose to remove part of their babies body with no medical reason though? Should that choice not be up to the boy when he gets old enough to choose himself?

...(..what I’ve been googling a bit this morning../..researching..:laugh:..)...is whether adult Jewish males feel their parents had../..have a right to circumcise ...because that for me would be the thing also to think about...anyways, this is quite interesting because Jeff Goldblum, although obviously agreeing with circumcision...he also totally agrees with the other guy when he said..’my son was born perfect, why would I change/alter him in any way’...

A0WyGWDcC6E

[Niamh.]

Well exactly, I don't see why it's a huge leap for the religions that have it as a tradition to make it that it's something that people can choose to do at 18, when they are adults capable of making that choice. Not least because they may well have decided by that point that they're non-religious...

Also, in terms of the procedure itself, the foreskin is actually attached to the glans at birth and removal at that point is far more "dramatic" a procedure... and it being done to infants is actually what causes a lot of the problems that some experience (scarring / loss of sensation) because it has to be forcibly "peeled away" from the head of the penis. It doesn't start to detach until about age 3... most are fully detached by ages 5 or 6 but for some it doesn't even start to detach until puberty. It should DEFINITELY have detached by 18 - meaning that foreskin removal at age 18 would have far fewer risks, as well as the consent issue. It just makes sense :shrug:.

I don't even have a willy and reading that made me cross my legs :worry:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its bad enough catching the skin in your fly

https://im-01.gifer.com/F9U.gif

[Ammi]

..I have to say though, in reading up some this morning...it seems something that isn’t always practised faith/religion...there are alternative ‘non cut’ practises which many seem to opt for and are unquestioningly accepted by the more ‘traditionals’ as well...

[Ammi]

I don't even have a willy and reading that made me cross my legs :worry:

..I have a Willy, he’s fairly spectacular and amazing..:lovedup:...


JmQ-YKGRU-E

[user104658]

I don't even have a willy and reading that made me cross my legs :worry:

Yeah, the forcible removal thing I can only imagine would be very painful. Even when there is a medical reason for removal it's rarely done before about age 5 for this very reason. It's also apparently become featured in prenatal educational stuff for all parents in the US, that it's not supposed to retract on newborns / infants, because it was so common for all kids to be circumsised for several decades but now is closer to 50/50 but the "understanding" of it hasn't caught up yet... so (gulp) there were numerous cases of parents trying to retract or even forcibly retracting the foreskin because they thought they had to get in there to clean :umm2: :bawling:. But you can seriously do some real damage doing that.

[user104658]

..I have a Willy, he’s fairly spectacular and amazing..:lovedup:...


https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61WMhNz9N%2BL._SX344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

A'body's Willy...

[Niamh.]

Yeah, the forcible removal thing I can only imagine would be very painful. Even when there is a medical reason for removal it's rarely done before about age 5 for this very reason. It's also apparently become featured in prenatal educational stuff for all parents in the US, that it's not supposed to retract on newborns / infants, because it was so common for all kids to be circumsised for several decades but now is closer to 50/50 but the "understanding" of it hasn't caught up yet... so (gulp) there were numerous cases of parents trying to retract or even forcibly retracting the foreskin because they thought they had to get in there to clean :umm2: :bawling:. But you can seriously do some real damage doing that.

:worry: poor babies

[user104658]

I've heard that "cosmetic excess skin removal" is becoming more popular lately. Which is basically the "dangly bit" of excess foreskin (the "anteater", if you will...) being removed but leaving enough to "neatly" cover the head.

[Niamh.]

The anteater :laugh: are people really that bothered?

[user104658]

The anteater :laugh: are people really that bothered?

U4zUauDluP8

... ... ... ...... you're probably going to have to remove this :joker:.

[Crimson Dynamo]

she can snap mine anytime

[Niamh.]

U4zUauDluP8

... ... ... ...... you're probably going to have to remove this :joker:.

The penis' are blurred out so I think it's ok? :laugh: but seriously wtaf? :laugh2:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I expect she alters the images using Photocock?

[user104658]

The penis' are blurred out so I think it's ok? :laugh: but seriously wtaf? :laugh2:

The bit where the guy says he volunteered because it's "nice to feel desireable" then it cuts to a penis dressed up like a little gameshow host... :laugh2:

[user104658]

she can snap mine

:omgno:

[Livia]

I didn't know it was ever legal there. I thought it was all prawn rings, frozen chips and ice cream.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I didn't know it was ever legal there. I thought it was all prawn rings, frozen chips and ice cream.

Not Stacey Caprimint's "what have you eaten in the last hour" list being exposed


:shocked:

[Niamh.]

Not Stacey Caprimint's "what have you eaten in the last hour" list being exposed


:shocked:

:laugh2:

[Livia]

Not Stacey Caprimint's "what have you eaten in the last hour" list being exposed


:shocked:

That couldn't be what I ate last, prawns aren't kosher :hmph:

See the way I'm skillfully body-swerving the circumcision debate?

[Crimson Dynamo]

That couldn't be what I ate last, prawns aren't kosher :hmph:

See the way I'm skillfully body-swerving the circumcision debate?

I sure did

:hee:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I literally worried every time I posted in it about you reading it

:worry:

[Livia]

I literally worried every time I posted in it about you reading it

:worry:

Of course you did, Trumpet. I know how skillfully, and with what tact, you tread the minefield of religious debate. You git.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Of course you did, Trumpet. I know how skillfully, and with what tact, you tread the minefield of religious debate. You git.

https://m.popkey.co/9f99f9/zEq8e.gif

[Livia]

https://m.popkey.co/9f99f9/zEq8e.gif

LMAOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo

That's how I will picture you from now on.

[Denver]

https://m.popkey.co/9f99f9/zEq8e.gif

Not Niamh stealing potatoes from the local farm :fan:

[Crimson Dynamo]

:fan:

[jaxie]

LMAOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo

That's how I will picture you from now on.

LT wears a skirt?? :shocked:

[Niamh.]

LT wears a skirt?? :shocked:

he is Scottish you know :hee: