[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

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

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 , 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.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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

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

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

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.]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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 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.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

he had to do certain things a bit differentl.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by 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.




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 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??


Yeah i've never understood why or how babies getting their ears pierced has been acceptable , 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 ?? , surely no matter if you're circumcised or not if you're careless with your sexual partners then you're still risking yourself ? .

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

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


Yeah i've never understood why or how babies getting their ears pierced has been acceptable , 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 ?? , surely no matter if you're circumcised or not if you're careless with your sexual partners then you're still risking yourself ? .

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 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]

Originally Posted by 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 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 , but now i know so that's ok i figured you'd have to do different things as it must feel strange .

[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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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".

[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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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/circum...-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.