Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10632437)

Yeah, for actual reasons fair enough, just for the sake of it and it should be banned.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10632438)

I agree with this, and livias post upthread too. But did not want to 'what about' in a thread about male circumscision, given I complain about whatabouts everywhere else :hehe:

Yeah, 'MGM' is nothing like FGM. FGM is utterly utterly barbaric and cannot really be compared to circumscision. Mind, I do not think that parm was doing that. But I guess even terming it MGM is..comparing it in a way. As you said.

I do disagree to no downsides of circumscision though tbh. There might not be physical downsides, but I have read hundreds of accounts of blokes really pissed off and upset about their parents removing part of them without consent. So there are mental downsides it seems.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10632444)

Apparently is reduces sensitivity aswell so in theory sex may be affected a bit afterwards, although a man who has always been circumcised since becoming sexually active wouldn't be able to compare it to sex without circumcision

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10632438)

I agree with this, and livias post upthread too. But did not want to 'what about' in a thread about male circumscision, given I complain about whatabouts everywhere else :hehe:

Yeah, 'MGM' is nothing like FGM. FGM is utterly utterly barbaric and cannot really be compared to circumscision. Mind, I do not think that parm was doing that. But I guess even terming it MGM is..comparing it in a way. As you said.

I do disagree to no downsides of circumscision though tbh. There might not be physical downsides, but I have read hundreds of accounts of blokes really pissed off and upset about their parents removing part of them without consent. So there are mental downsides it seems.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 10632453)

I don't think it's really whataboutism, it's just commenting on false equivalency.

As for your last paragraph, I think that comes under the philosophy side of it, is it right for a parent to make that decision for their child? For me personally my personal take is 'meh'. It's a flap of skin that you have to pull back to wash yourself properly or it'll get infected. It's a bother more than anything. I think a lot of men who are circumcised would prefer to remain that way if they could experience the other side of it.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10632458)

Maybe, but I do think it should be a choice the bloke makes, not something the parents decide when they are babies. Its quite telling I think, that there seems to be a lack of adult men wanting to be circumscised..unless for actual medical problems. None just 'because'

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 10632462)

Probably because we'd remember the recovery as an adult :laugh: I imagine it would be a worse procedure as an adult too, babies could probably recover from it quite quickly while a man might be out of commission for a few days or would be slower to move around.

I'm ultimately fine with it being the parents' choice given that circumcision doesn't really have any big health drawbacks, only positives.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10632418)

I wouldn't think you could sue your parents for refusing to cut off pieces of your body. I would hope not anyway, mind some of the things that end up in court these days..you never know D:

He could always chose to get it done as an adult. That seems to be rare for some reason..hmm

Originally Posted by Twosugars (Post 10632493)

A perfect job for a paedo sadist I'd imagine, mutilating infants

Originally Posted by parmnion (Post 10632491)

The whole.point is they have to have it done within 8 days of birth to be proper Jews. ..That's sounds daft but I don't know the correct terminology

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 10632496)

Where did that even come from I wonder, cutting off a piece of a baby's genitals to be more religious? What is the reasoning behind it, does anyone know?

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10632517)

it was a tribal thing to show that you were part of the jewish tribe and not someone who would enter a city and kill people - i think that was the initial reason

ie not something that could be faked

Originally Posted by smudgie (Post 10632519)

My brother had itdone as a young child, not a great experience.
A friends son had it done when he was three, again painful and upsetting.
Both had struggled for a time before, both were excellent after a couple of weeks.
Much better to have it done as a baby I believe, less painful, less to remove, less stress.
Not sure how many boys struggle with infections or tightness :shrug:

Originally Posted by thesheriff443 (Post 10632542)

How many people happily get piecings that are pointless and mutillate there bodies.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10632544)

But thats a choice. Its different chosing to mutilate your own body..rather than someone else make the decision and do it for you.

Originally Posted by thesheriff443 (Post 10632552)

True but it’s another form of mutilation that’s not only acceptable but is chosen.

Originally Posted by thesheriff443 (Post 10632524)

It’s a funny old world, in which people are happy for perverts to be castrated but not for a piece of skin to be cut off.

Unless it affects you in person it’s just another white noise subject in life.

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet (Post 10632617)

if we aim to progress as a species stopping children being disfigured for superstition is good thing