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:.

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

What's in moisturisers and face creams? D:

Not a crusty nib.

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

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?

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.

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:

"Healing properties"

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

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-...cised-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

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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:

..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...

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


Its a home win for me

:joker:

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"?

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/religi...cision_1.shtml

..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 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:

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:.

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?

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.

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.

indeed as that will be part of the uniform

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

Can see that falling on death ears.

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:.

...(..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’...

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

Its bad enough catching the skin in your fly

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

..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...

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