[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Didnt even know you were a parent

You said you were pretty sure that foreskin should be a parental choice, and I asked why. Do you habe any single reason? I was simply curious

I'm pregnant.

It's a parental choice to have your kids ears pierced. Is there any single reason for that?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm pregnant.

It's a parental choice to have your kids ears pierced. Is there any single reason for that?

Usually just vanity I’d imagine. Seems like a discussion for a different thread, and still 100% does not answer the question I asked 10 minutes ago

I’m going to ask for a third time just incase!

Is there any single reason that foreskin should be a parental choice?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Usually just vanity I’d imagine. Seems like a discussion for a different thread, and still 100% does not answer the question I asked 10 minutes ago

I’m going to ask for a third time just incase!

Is there any single reason that foreskin should be a parental choice?

I know there is a certain animus between us, so I'm wondering why you're asking me this. You're asking because I am Jewish and you expect me to share with you 5000 of Judaism and the ins and outs of my faith so you can
ridicule and/or rubbish it. Go ask someone else.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I know there is a certain animus between us, so I'm wondering why you're asking me this. You're asking because I am Jewish and you expect me to share with you 5000 of Judaism and the ins and outs of my faith so you can
ridicule and/or rubbish it. Go ask someone else.

I’m asking because you said you were pretty sure that foreskin was a parental choice and I found this stance to be unusual so wondered if you could elaborate by giving any single reason.

You still have not gave any single reason.

Your own signature is the closest thing to anti-semetism in this thread.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

I’m asking because you said you were pretty sure that foreskin was a parental choice and I found this stance to be unusual so wondered if you could elaborate by giving any single reason.

You still have not gave any single reason.

I know what you asked me and I know why. And no, I don't choose to elaborate for you so you can spend the rest of the morning back and forth telling me I'm wrong.

So post again, have the last word, then move on.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

I’m asking because you said you were pretty sure that foreskin was a parental choice and I found this stance to be unusual so wondered if you could elaborate by giving any single reason.

You still have not gave any single reason.

Your own signature is the closest thing to anti-semetism in this thread.

Ohhh Missed your spiteful little edit.
"I don't reply to people on my ignore list" is anti Semitic? **** off.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

Ohhh Missed your spiteful little edit.
"I don't reply to people on my ignore list" is anti Semitic? **** off.

Of course not lol

“For the many, not the jew” is probably seen as anti Semitic by hundreds of guests that don’t know you personally though.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I know what you asked me and I know why. And no, I don't choose to elaborate for you so you can spend the rest of the morning back and forth telling me I'm wrong.

So post again, have the last word, then move on.

Maybe don’t post things that you’re unwilling to elaborate on in the future.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Of course not lol

“For the many, not the jew” is probably seen as anti Semitic by hundreds of guests that don’t know you personally though.

You underestimate people... If people see a protest against anti-Semitism and think it's anti-Semitic, and don't make the Labour connection... they probably shouldn't be online.

So sorry, I am not anti-Semitic LOL....

I'm finished with this tedious baiting.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Withano

Maybe don’t post things that you’re unwilling to elaborate on in the future.

I'm not unwilling to elaborate. I'm unwilling to elaborate to you.

Go and ask someone else, someone you d
on't obviously despise. It doesn't have to be a Jew, could be a Muslim.

Bye then.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm not unwilling to elaborate. I'm unwilling to elaborate to you.

Go and ask someone else, someone you d
on't obviously despise. It doesn't have to be a Jew, could be a Muslim.

Bye then.

Nobody else in my entire lifetime has told me they believe foreskin to be a parental choice. I doubt anybody else in my lifetime will say this to me either.

Lets be honest with ourselves. You won’t elaborate on it because you can’t.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

If my Baby is born a boy, I hope you all have the number for my local Children's Services, it's in County Hall Norwich, PM me for more details just so you're equipped with all the info. And it's not like there are any other children in the country suffering abuse, sexual, physical, at the hands of those who are supposed to nurture and protect them; kids plonked in front of a telly all day, yet more kids born into already poverty-stricken families... We'll let that slide though because well... religion... it's like, stupid, innit. Let's obsess about children born to loving parents who have faith. They're the real b*stards.

[user104658]

Hmmmm this is a tough one for me to answer I think because I was circumcised at 5 for medical reasons, and also my penis is obviously spectacular and grand so I do have a bias, but I'm going to do my best .

- GENERAL first thoughts; I firmly believe in bodily autonomy so I think in an ideal world, it should always be the choice of the individual unless it's for medical reasons. And yes I would say exactly the same about any body alteration... I flat out think getting children piercings should be illegal. You can't go and get your baby a tattoo so why are you be able to get holes put in them? It just doesn't seem right. So yeah I put it in the same category; like tattoos and piercings, there is nothing WRONG with circumcision, but it is a body modification and I think individual autonomy needs to come into the equation here.

- I think referring to it as genital mutilation presents some huge problems. Female genital mutilation is utterly horrific. It's barbaric. Even suggesting that circumcision is in the same ballpark DOWNPLAYS the seriousness of FGM and we need to be really careful about sending the opposite message to the one that is intended; ie people getting the idea that FGM is "just the same as men being circumcised so can't be that bad". Even just calling it "worse" is a gross understatement. Its a completely different thing.

- regardless of all of the above, in medical terms, I personally don't think it should be done on babies. It's safer and has better results after the foreskin naturally separates from the glans, which happens at around 2/3.

[Kizzy]

Ok let's not say mutilation, let's go with your word TS modification. .. why would anyone want to modify a perfect baby? Why would god want that?
It causes pain, discomfort and there's a risk of infection as there is with any wound. I just can't justify it... blind faith is not enough sorry.
I can accept chatting nonsense into the ether, transubstantiation... but this? Nah.

[Livia]

So non-believers would like to dictate to people of faith. Good luck.

[Kizzy]

I'm a believer too, in God not religion.
Aren't we alk supposed to be created in his image
... Is Gods image wrong?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm a believer too, in God not religion.
Aren't we alk supposed to be created in his image
... Is Gods image wrong?

Even if you don't believe the "in his image" part, it's hard to comprehend how people believe that God intended for people to be born with a foreskin only for it to be immediately removed. Like... For what possible reason?

[Kizzy]

I don't know... That's special esoteric knowledge specifically for those who not only believe in God but have 'faith'

[Twosugars]

One of my gripes about major religions is how pernickety their god seems to be. All those detailed and sometimes ridiculous rules about unimportant things.
Surely ten commandments is plenty for a broadly ethical and godly life, the rest is just silly.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

One of my gripes about major religions is how pernickety their god seems to be. All those detailed and sometimes ridiculous rules about unimportant things.
Surely ten commandments is plenty for a broadly ethical and godly life, the rest is just silly.

Tbf that's usually how they're treated, the commandments being the "laws" that must be followed and everything else just being guidance and teaching.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbf that's usually how they're treated, the commandments being the "laws" that must be followed and everything else just being guidance and teaching.

But circumcision seems ordered directly by god apparently

[Twosugars]

Foreskin reclaimers: the ‘intactivists’ fighting infant male circumcision
Emboldened by the body-positive movement and a sense of rage, a growing chorus is pushing back against a common custom
Gary Nunn


Circumcision remains a religious custom in the Islamic and Jewish faiths. Photograph: World History Archive/Alamy Stock Photo


The media officer of one of the UK’s top medical schools doesn’t realise she hasn’t muted herself as she puts me on hold.

She sniggers with her colleague as she passes on my request – to speak to an expert on male circumcision – before informing me they don’t have one.

This foreskin flippancy festers into revulsion in some areas of popular culture.

In one Sex and the City episode, Charlotte is so repelled by her lover’s foreskin, she likens it to a “shar-pei”, the analogy cementing Miranda’s resolve to circumcise her kids.

It’s written for entertainment value, but for Adam Zeldis, a 36-year-old software developer from New York, it’s no laughing matter.

Many men circumcised as babies “have an epiphany when the cultural blinders come off”, he tells the Guardian. “I was a vulnerable 16-year-old when I realised how much skin was removed and that my bodily autonomy was violated.”

Georganne Chapin, who runs Intact America, hears about foreskin degradation often. “Men call us saying their wives think it’s ‘disgusting and dirty’ not to circumcise their sons. It’s sad,” she says.

“Intactivists” (portmanteau of “intact” and “activist”) are raising their voices in increasing numbers about infant male circumcision – but are they being heard?

Not according to Zeldis. “I felt immense loss and grief that I’d never be given the chance to experience sex the way nature intended it. And nobody in society cared. It was terribly isolating.”

America is the western nation with the highest proportion of infant male circumcisions. Many do it for non-religious and non-therapeutic reasons. Due to different tracking measures and non-uniform reporting of newborn circumcisions, the prevalence is difficult to measure accurately. One American healthcare agency report in 2012 found that circumcisions had dropped from around 60% in 2000 to 54.5% in 2009.

Madison Zaliski, 26, gave birth to her son in Arkansas eight months ago. Despite not consenting, she was “asked multiple times a day” when he would be circumcised. “Most nurses thought it was a paperwork mistake,” she says.

The other notable western nations circumcising baby boys are Canada and Australia. The Canadian Paediatric Society uses the figure of 31.9%, based on research conducted in 2007. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians puts Australia and New Zealand’s figure at between 10% and 20%.

In the UK, the National Childbirth Trust estimates 8.5% of men are circumcised. The NHS stopped paying for it in the 1940s.

‘It creates trauma, pain and risk’
Why do it? The most common response is custom: because dad did. Zeldis says this is the “response people like my parents give when they don’t really know why”.

The non-religious history, at least in America, comes from the Victorian myth that masturbation was dangerous because the loss of semen would weaken a boy permanently, and threaten the moral order. It was thought that circumcision would somehow prevent masturbation. The 1960s sexual revolution debunked that.

Chapin’s passion to end infant male circumcision came from her younger brother: “I remember seeing his bloody penis and being taken back to have his urethra forcibly reopened – it sealed over as a result of his circumcision. The trauma kept returning.”

She lists her reasons against the practice like a scattergun: “You can’t go cutting the body parts of people without consent unless it’ll kill them. It creates trauma, pain and risk. It permanently alters a child’s body and their sexual function and pleasure later in life. And it’s a waste of medical resources – but American medicine is a money machine and if a procedure is refundable, it’ll happen.”
I hear these reasons repeatedly from opponents of circumcision.

Zeldis’s adult perception of his operation is echoed in many of their stories: “Someone strapped me down and cut off part of my genitals with a clamp and knife, forever changing my sex life, for no reason. If you touch leftover tissue, it’s highly sensitive – and that’s the majority of what’s cut off. There’s no ‘cut here’ mark, so men are all left with different versions of the procedure.”

Those protesting against circumcision have, as of this year, fallen into two closely related camps.

The first group is those keen to reframe vocabulary around “circumcision” into “male genital mutilation”. The same lexicon recurs for these men: violation, non-consent, maimed, rage, powerlessness.

The second group is reclaiming the foreskin by celebrating it. It’s led by people like Damien Williams, 45, from Sydney. He tells the Guardian: “We realised we don’t need to fight the battle against circumcision, and decided to lay down arms on that front. Let the circumcisers have that brand, and all the cutting, blood, fear, pain and hate for the human body that goes with it. Let them try to sell that to a public now embracing the positive-body movement and has a healthy scepticism for people in white coats selling them things they don’t need. We made a pact to push forward a new brand – foreskin!”

Part of the brand is foreskin restoration for men cut as babies. Williams realised the need to do it because of discomfort in his teens. “I was constantly irritated by my glans rubbing against clothing. I knew even from this age that I was supposed to have a protective covering,” he says.

Restoration techniques, which involve weighted tugging devices inserted on to the end of the penis, can be arduous. They didn’t work out for Zeldis. “It requires years of dedicated disciplined practice which I’ve been unable to give,” he says. “Those devices are uncomfortable to wear all day.”

But for Williams, it was revelatory: “After gaining enough restored foreskin, the main new experience for me in addition to the protection was the ‘rolling’ function, where the foreskin glides over the glans. I realised: ‘Oh, THIS is what a normal penis is supposed to do.’”

He channeled his anger at that function being “stolen” from him into the restoration process, which he finds psychologically healing.

Goals to ban the practice on minors risk accusations of Islamophobia or antisemitism. But the US Council of Muslim Organisations said it was “not an issue we’ve dealt with”.

Although not mentioned in the Qur’an, circumcision is mentioned in the Sunna – the practice of the Prophet Muhammad – and has been a religious custom since the beginning of Islam. It’s done for cleanliness; Muslims believe the removal of the foreskin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine and other matter can’t get trapped there.

Shimon Koffler Fogel, chief executive of America’s Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, explains the biblical reason for circumcision: “From when God first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and his household, this ritual has become a symbol of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. From an esoteric perspective, Jewish sages have explained that man was created imperfect – with the requirement of circumcision to achieve that perfection.”

Fogel says “opposition to it is more a device of anti-religion activists than genuine concern for what is a fabricated issue”.

When I put some of the language used by opponents to him, he says: “Clearly it’s not an ‘amputation’. Nor can it be considered in the same way as FGM [female genital mutilation]. Undertaken at birth, it neither constitutes a gross abuse of the infant, nor a significant healthcare risk.”

Medical miracle or genital mutilation?
Medical opinions differ. Cheryl Gowar from the UK’s National Aids Trust says: “Medical male circumcision reduces the possibility of HIV transmission from HIV-positive women to HIV-negative men by around 50%. Circumcision may also decrease sexual transmission of HIV in men who have sex with men (for the insertive partner), although studies on this are inconclusive.”

The NHS, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Canadian Paediatric Department agree that studies about circumcision reducing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases are inconclusive and spurious because they were carried out in African countries such as Uganda, and the higher rates of STIs there are not comparable to western countries. None of these organisations recommends the routine circumcision of newborn males.

Paediatrician Dr Paul Bauert says the Royal Australasian College of Physicians believes the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision (penile cancer, HIV, STIs, UTIs) and the complication rates don’t warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. And, he says, “ethical and human rights concerns have been raised regarding elective infant male circumcision because it’s recognised that the foreskin has a functional role”.

That functional role includes a dispute over how many nerve endings the foreskin has to enhance sexual function and pleasure (estimates vary between 20,000 and 100,000, making it the most sensitive part of the penis and an erogenous zone). But Chapin says: “How many nerve endings would make it OK? The body is designed that way, for that sexual function.”

In addition to potential loss of sensitivity, there are stories of painful erections. A study of 5,552 people found that circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men.

In the Netflix documentary American Circumcision, for every medical professional who makes claims about the benefits of male circumcision, there are three who will dispute the risk-to-benefit ratio.

Intactivists and foreskin reclaimers are speaking up in higher numbers, but many will not.

Zeldis has a theory as to why: “The majority of circumcised men tell themselves it was good for them. The alternative to that denial involves admitting you were harmed and sexually maimed as a child in one of your most sensitive areas.

“Many men don’t want to psychologically deal with that. It’s overwhelming.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-circumcision

[user104658]

To be honest 2S I have encountered a number of "intactivists" in my internet travels and they are ... ... ... well. Some of them are... something. They're almost exclusively females / mothers and the way they talk about foreskin and "perfect, gleaming penises" at times borders on fetishization. It's a strange world probably best not gone into in too much detail . To be honest, just the fact that 90+% of intactivists are not men makes the whole thing a bit odd?

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be honest 2S I have encountered a number of "intactivists" in my internet travels and they are ... ... ... well. Some of them are... something. They're almost exclusively females / mothers and the way they talk about foreskin and "perfect, gleaming penises" at times borders on fetishization. It's a strange world probably best not gone into in too much detail . To be honest, just the fact that 90+% of intactivists are not men makes the whole thing a bit odd?

"many women like a nice-looking cock" shocker?
and what's wrong with fetishising penises?

but seriously, I don't care about the activists, just posted it for general information

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

"many women like a nice-looking cock" shocker?
and what's wrong with fetishising penises?

but seriously, I don't care about the activists, just posted it for general information

Thanks 2s, thats really informative , plenty of objective views there