If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(News.com.au)   Sweden getting all snippy about circumcision?   (news.com.au) divider line 94
    More: Stupid, Sweden, Sweden Democrats, United Nations Convention, theocracies  
•       •       •

2378 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Sep 2013 at 3:42 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-29 12:05:20 PM
Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.
 
2013-09-29 12:24:21 PM
Female circumcision is quite possibly one of the most barbaric things I've ever heard of, right up there with ketchup on steak.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-29 12:35:51 PM

BumpInTheNight: Female circumcision is quite possibly one of the most barbaric things I've ever heard of, right up there with ketchup on steak.


Not that bad, but no one should be able to snip off parts of your privates without your consent.
 
2013-09-29 01:00:12 PM
Circumcision thread on a Sunday?  Fark this.
 
2013-09-29 01:35:18 PM
Peni .
 
2013-09-29 02:25:23 PM

BumpInTheNight: Female circumcision is quite possibly one of the most barbaric things I've ever heard of, right up there with ketchup on steak.


Almost as bad as trolling a male circumcision thread.
 
2013-09-29 03:50:31 PM
So they're banning unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants. I presume the tag is for those who're outraged by this.
 
2013-09-29 03:52:31 PM
An ex of mine became fascinated by male circumcision when she found out I was (only one in my family in my generation, too.  Thanks, Dad).  She Googled a picture of a baby in a circumcision apparatus and said "Look, that used to be you."

She couldn't understand why I didn't want to keep looking at it.
 
2013-09-29 03:56:31 PM
Circumcision really isn't necessary in this day and age, but it seems really weird for people to get so worked up about it. A lot of these anti-circumcision folks come off as crazy as most of the mens' rights advocates (who occasionally bring up a good point, but are drowned out by the lunacy).
 
2013-09-29 03:57:21 PM

RoyBatty: BumpInTheNight: Female circumcision is quite possibly one of the most barbaric things I've ever heard of, right up there with ketchup on steak.

Almost as bad as trolling a male circumcision thread.


Yeah, because these are always so rational.
 
2013-09-29 03:57:41 PM
God, no, not again. Time to make like a limp penis and get the fark outta Dodge.
 
2013-09-29 03:59:17 PM
Oh this thread again.

/Thanks mom & dad for making me awesome.
 
2013-09-29 04:06:53 PM
Oh this thread again.
 
2013-09-29 04:07:14 PM
I am completely happy to have an intact penis. I've had no problems with keeping it clean - the foreskin can be pulled back easily enough to expose the head for washing - no more difficult than washing behind your ears. And the head is quite sensitive. I think it would be too sensitive if it was just rubbing against the cloth of my underwear without the foreskin protecting it. So I would hazard that circumsized men must have lost some of that sensitivity, otherwise just walking around would be uncomfortable.
 
2013-09-29 04:24:05 PM
Does anyone remember that blonde haired blue eyed anti circumcision superhero who used an 8 ball to fight against circumcision enforcing orthodox jews using sub machine guns?
 
2013-09-29 04:25:03 PM
When my son was born, the nurses and doctors didn't even ask if we were considering circumcision. It's pretty much not an option in hospitals around here (eastern Canada).

Why is it even legal to slice off bits of a child's body without a solid medical reason and several attending doctors agreeing that it's the only viable course of treatment?

If someone mutilated me as a baby, or allowed me to be mutilated, I'd be VERY pissed off at them as an adult.
 
2013-09-29 04:25:55 PM
People, we're missing the bigger issue here.

Where's the weeners tag?
 
2013-09-29 04:26:35 PM
Well Israel does love the circumcised pen_is , they make fraud science articles where they claim that being circumcised makes you immune to aids(article on AIDs explosion in Africa) and all that icky bacteria under the hood(article on differences between hood or no hood).

/Genital mutilation is barbaric.
//Religion is barbaric too, but stupid people attract to other stupid people and give away money to pedophiles and child abusers.
 
2013-09-29 04:30:31 PM

BumpInTheNight: Female circumcision is quite possibly one of the most barbaric things I've ever heard of, right up there with ketchup on steakHot Dogs.


FTFY, considering we are talking circumcision, Hot Dogs are appropriate in certain descriptions.
 
2013-09-29 04:34:16 PM
You know, they say that the Sweden Democrats are far right, but in the US they would be middle of the road republicans, to even blue dog democrats.
 
2013-09-29 04:35:04 PM
FTFA: "a proposal last October to ban circumcision from the far right party Sweden Democrats was rejected.

Anti-circumcision efforts from far-right parties are mostly racist.

Jews and Muslims who hold circumcision central to their religious identity are heavily opposed to more left-wing child's rights opposition because it the operation is delayed to an age where consent can be given they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.


A large percent of pro-circumcision authors, while arguing health benefits, come from Jewish or Muslim backgrounds. Pro-circ authors also love racist opposition because they can focus on bigotry as opposed to legitimate opposing medical opinions.
 
2013-09-29 04:39:21 PM

Generation_D: Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.


I was in the "uncircumcised" camp for a while until my wife pointed out experience on the issue with a point I hadn't considered: sensitivity.  A unsnipped penis is way more sensitive.  An old BF of hers couldn't last very long because of it.  And hell, for how sensitive a uncircumcised penis is, why risk PE episodes when women already have a hard enough time getting guys to give them an orgasm?

I'm not even religious.  I don't give a crap about the religious aspects.  I just don't want to frak up my son's sex life down the road because I made the wrong choice when he was born.

How many male porn stars do you see who have a unsnipped penis?  Exactly.
 
2013-09-29 04:43:29 PM
Oh, boy, someone get the popcorn.
 
2013-09-29 04:43:54 PM

HairBolus: they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.


Which makes me wonder, if they expect that the children aren't really all that religious and are probably breaking tons of other commandments, why bother about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off?
 
2013-09-29 04:58:13 PM

blue_2501: Generation_D: Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.

I was in the "uncircumcised" camp for a while until my wife pointed out experience on the issue with a point I hadn't considered: sensitivity.  A unsnipped penis is way more sensitive.  An old BF of hers couldn't last very long because of it.  And hell, for how sensitive a uncircumcised penis is, why risk PE episodes when women already have a hard enough time getting guys to give them an orgasm?

I'm not even religious.  I don't give a crap about the religious aspects.  I just don't want to frak up my son's sex life down the road because I made the wrong choice when he was born.

How many male porn stars do you see who have a unsnipped penis?  Exactly.


Porn stars are probably part of the problem.  If the majority of penises that people see are snipped, then the un-snipped version looks funny.  Imagine if you were opening a puppy box, but instead of a cute puppy jumping out one of those gross wrinkly hairless cats jumped out.
 
2013-09-29 04:59:03 PM

DerAppie: Which makes me wonder, if they expect that the children aren't really all that religious and are probably breaking tons of other commandments, why bother about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off?


Seems to me that the laws that focus on genitals and their use are the most important part of any religion. Well, the Judeo-christian ones, anyway.

/god creates man with foreskin
//tells him to cut it off
///trollface
 
2013-09-29 04:59:35 PM

DerAppie: HairBolus: they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.

Which makes me wonder, if they expect that the children aren't really all that religious and are probably breaking tons of other commandments, why bother about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off?


Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

i.imgur.com

That said, my not terribly educated understanding is that throughout the centuries the amount and degree of circumcision has varied and been argued by Jewish scholars, and it is possible that it could be replaced by things like a ceremonial nicking.

(When the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that female circumcisions might be replaced with a ceremonial nicking, the usual feminist suspects went ape shiat.)

I am not a historian, so I have no clue as to the actual history of Jewish circumcision, but I wouldn't mind seeing it replaced with a small nick.

I think a problem the MRAs have (and I am very sympathetic to MRA issues) is that often they don't focus on what are the men's issues, but instead focus on finding male issue counterparts to feminist issues and then playing the victim card as a trump.

I think most circumcisions should be eliminated. I am not sure the first step is making them illegal, that just seems to be a way to delay their eventual elimination by making it a religious war.
 
2013-09-29 05:12:17 PM

RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.


And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?
 
2013-09-29 05:27:33 PM

HairBolus: it the operation is delayed to an age where consent can be given they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.


Exactly. "If we give them the choice, they might not do it. So we better do it to them while they can't object."
 
2013-09-29 05:27:34 PM

DerAppie: RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?


My apologies, I thought you were honestly asking a question about "about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off? ".  I hadn't realized you were staking a position that would preclude your reading all of my response.
 
2013-09-29 05:35:44 PM
I'm snipped. My son is not. It really wasn't hard to ... not make such a decision for him.

The "sensitivity" argument is bullshiat.
 
2013-09-29 05:42:41 PM

RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?

My apologies, I thought you were honestly asking a question about "about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off? ".  I hadn't realized you were staking a position that would preclude your reading all of my response.


I read it all. And the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense. We're still dealing with Party A making choices for Party B based on a set of beliefs that Party A doesn't expect Party B to subscribe to. If the parents expect their children to grow up to be non-religious, or at least not religious enough to have someone cut (away) a part of their dick, why put them through it in the first place?

/This isn't like piano lessons where parents can force things on their child
//Pianos only cause complications in the movies
///Or very bad moving companies
 
2013-09-29 05:48:45 PM

DerAppie: RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?

My apologies, I thought you were honestly asking a question about "about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off? ".  I hadn't realized you were staking a position that would preclude your reading all of my response.

I read it all. And the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense. We're still dealing with Party A making choices for Party B based on a set of beliefs that Party A doesn't expect Party B to subscribe to. If the parents expect their children to grow up to be non-religious, or at least not religious enough to have someone cut (away) a part of their dick, why put them through it in the first place?

/This isn't like piano lessons where parents can force things on their child
//Pianos only cause complications in the movies
///Or very bad moving companies


You're a moron. Bye.
 
2013-09-29 05:52:29 PM
As a man who had it happen when I was old enough to remember, I prefer being snipped.

Speculation from either party how much sensitivity  which type has is retarded.  May as well be a man telling women what it's like to be a woman for all you actually know.

Thing about sensitivity is that it varies per individual and the human body/mind are amazingly adaptive organisms.  There is no steadfast rule that one can logically argue that applies to every circumsized and every uncircumsized penis, no matter which side you favor.

Some circumcisions have a negative effect.  Problems with uncirc'd such as minor malformations and infections also occur.

Yeah, you can teach your kid to clean himself, but how well will that realistically pan out for everyone?  There are a vast number of males(child on into teens) that almost refuse to shower, much less give it a real effort.

I see no real problem with keeping it optional.  Calling it barbaric is an argument from absurdity, some of you would likely make the same argument towards trimming your own pubic hair(ie "who wants a partner that looks like a bald little kid!?"  Be honest, that's a fairly common opinion on fark as well.

The botched circumcision is the biggest real problem here as far as I am concerned.  We could focus better on informing parents of the risks, and regulating the procedure to minimize risk by standardizing methods and treatment afterwards.  Letting a skeevy old man who can't see simply go at it with a pair of rusty scissors shouldn't be happening, but it more or less does.

It may be a mite painful, but it's an newborn fetus we're talking about here(most of the time), just about everything they experience is pain.  None of us remember much of anything from before we started school, much less mere days after being born. Most of you don't really remember the last time you stubbed your toe really bad unless it was really recently.

Circ'd men don't turn into psychopath killers, nor do they take 3 hours to orgasm because they are just not sensitive enough.

A lot of retarded fallacy arguments from people who don't want other people to have a choice and want to legislate how others live their lives, same as any other hot topic.

/makes me wonder if fallacy - phallus have a common ancestor
// and feces - facetious(ie being shiatty)

As to the topic of which is better based on personal experience:

I much prefer being snipped, like I said.  Nothing better than feeling friction on the skin go all the way down the shaft, as opposed to loose skin that's wriggled up and down.  A good way to convey that that people having trouble picturing it....  Run a feather up and down your arm lightly until you get goosebumps.  Then tape the feather to your arm and just move your skin as much as you can.

Sure, there is wide variety in shape and form in circ'd men, but for many, the above is just the way it is for at least part of the shaft.

I say 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  The "stop liking what I don't like" argument is tired and lame.
 
2013-09-29 05:52:52 PM
Phimosis That is all. (nsfw pic)

/we do a lot of these at my hospital.
 
2013-09-29 06:00:43 PM

RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?

My apologies, I thought you were honestly asking a question about "about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off? ".  I hadn't realized you were staking a position that would preclude your reading all of my response.

I read it all. And the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense. We're still dealing with Party A making choices for Party B based on a set of beliefs that Party A doesn't expect Party B to subscribe to. If the parents expect their children to grow up to be non-religious, or at least not religious enough to have someone cut (away) a part of their dick, why put them through it in the first place?

/This isn't like piano lessons where parents can force things on their child
//Pianos only cause complications in the movies
///Or very bad moving companies

You're a moron. Bye.


Oh come on, I'm not commenting on the cut vs uncut debate. That is for people with an actual stake in it. I was merely pointing out the idiocy of the parents who are afraid that their children will grow up to be atheists if they aren't circumcised. And from that point of view a little nick is only nominally better because the idiocy will still remain. The parents make a choice for the child in order to have it comply with religious rules they don't expect their child to care about. As if that little nick will have more influence on the entire world view of the child than the entire formative years combined.

If thinking that it is an moronic position to maintain, than I'm a moron and I won't bother you any further.
 
2013-09-29 06:09:14 PM
blogs.laweekly.com
 
2013-09-29 06:17:56 PM

blue_2501: Generation_D: Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.

I was in the "uncircumcised" camp for a while until my wife pointed out experience on the issue with a point I hadn't considered: sensitivity.  A unsnipped penis is way more sensitive.  An old BF of hers couldn't last very long because of it.  And hell, for how sensitive a uncircumcised penis is, why risk PE episodes when women already have a hard enough time getting guys to give them an orgasm?

I'm not even religious.  I don't give a crap about the religious aspects.  I just don't want to frak up my son's sex life down the road because I made the wrong choice when he was born.

How many male porn stars do you see who have a unsnipped penis?  Exactly.


Wait, your wife told you you cum too fast compared to her old BF, so you underwent elective penis surgery? That's just said. Even if you think a cut one is aesthetically pleasing, it really makes no difference when your balls are long gone.

/un-cut, aesthetically pleasing (laaadiesss...), definitely zero performance issues
 
2013-09-29 06:22:19 PM

DerAppie: HairBolus: they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.

Which makes me wonder, if they expect that the children aren't really all that religious and are probably breaking tons of other commandments, why bother about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off?


As I said, it's the fundamental covenant a Jew makes with god. Keeping kosher is not the fundamental covenant a Jew makes with god.

God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns.

Yeah, well, no it wasn't.  See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut

And the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense. We're still dealing with Party A making choices for Party B based on a set of beliefs that Party A doesn't expect Party B to subscribe to

How much each Jew keeps to the commandments pretty much varies every day with the number of Jews. Sometimes more than that. That you understand you or your kids may be breaking various commandments doesn't toss Jews in Hell or excommunication. That various obligations/commandments, even apparent including circumcision change over the years or the weeks or even time of day in meaning as well as in adherence is just how Judaism has worked.

All of that to say that that circumcision is about the parents own obligations to Judaism as well as a wish and intent and hope and goal for the boy and how the parents will parent their boy as he grows up.

There really is only one way in any sense to state that the difference between a nick and complete removal of the foreskin is merely nominal.

It's not true in terms of pain, it's not true in terms of functioning of the foreskin, it's not true in terms of sexual function, it's not true in terms of parenting.

It can only be true in terms of religious obligation if various Jews and their advisors can understand it that way.

I take it you disagree with letting women get their babies, toddlers, any kid, ears pierced?

Your concern that parents are making decisions even including, horrors, medical decisions for their children that the kids may not like has been noted.

In the meantime, parents will continue to decide on food and diets, when to come in at night, how to dress, the treatment for colds and injuries, places to live, cars to drive, where to drive, schools to attend, sleep schedules, medical and dental care, sports the kids can play, bikes they can ride, where they can ride those bikes, when they can walk around the block on their own, when they can get onto a bus, and all sorts of other stuff far scarier to let idiot and backward parents decide for their own children.
 
2013-09-29 06:26:38 PM

DerAppie: RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: DerAppie: RoyBatty: Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

And it is completely bullshiat reason to make children go through it if you expect them to care enough to opt in at a decent age where they can choose for themselves. God said it was part of the covenant? So was not eating pork or prawns. Tons of Jews and Muslims do eat pork and prawns. In the end it is simply a gesture the parents make that their child can never take back. "You can't be of our religion if you aren't circumcised, but if you are it won't matter that you don't keep any of the rules we're supposed to follow. Therefore we did this to you even though we never expect you to have chosen it yourself." doesn't sound like bullshiat to you?

My apologies, I thought you were honestly asking a question about "about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off? ".  I hadn't realized you were staking a position that would preclude your reading all of my response.

I read it all. And the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense. We're still dealing with Party A making choices for Party B based on a set of beliefs that Party A doesn't expect Party B to subscribe to. If the parents expect their children to grow up to be non-religious, or at least not religious enough to have someone cut (away) a part of their dick, why put them through it in the first place?

/This isn't like piano lessons where parents can force things on their child
//Pianos only cause complications in the movies
///Or very bad moving companies

You're a moron. Bye.

Oh come on, I'm not commenting on the cut vs uncut debate. That is for people with an actual stake in it. I was merely pointing out the idiocy of the parents who are afraid that their children will grow up to be atheists if they aren't circumcised. And from that point of view a little nick is only nominally better because t ...


Imagine any religion or culture moving from any circumcision of a boy or girl to a ceremonial nick. Think about what it took for the leaders and members of those religions and cultures to make such an enormous move.

Now imagine you picketing them because "the little nick is an improvement only in a nominal sense".

What do you think happens next?
 
2013-09-29 07:08:23 PM
I'm OK with this. Leave the sexy bits intact on both sexes. Why should the man be forced to experience less sexual sensation. We've known about the benefits of hygiene for decades!

/snipped...
 
2013-09-29 07:25:13 PM

Generation_D: Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.

img.fark.net
 
2013-09-29 08:25:38 PM
this_thread_again.jpg
 
msP
2013-09-29 08:42:42 PM

Generation_D: Makes total sense. Other than backwards barbaric religious purposes, there's never been any reason for this operation. All the "cleanliness" and "prevents disease" reasoning they came up with have been thoroughly debunked.


I have never heard these reasons debunked. I completely agree that circumcision IS cleaner, and I could see how it could very easily prevent disease (especially in young boys who might not want to clean themselves as thoroughly as needed). I dated a guy who wasn't circumcised who showered every day and it still always smelled disgusting and turned me off. As a woman, I much prefer circumcised men.
 
2013-09-29 09:30:48 PM
I can't even begin to imagine what would be said if a man would only be with a woman who had been routinely surgically altered.
 
2013-09-29 09:30:55 PM

msP: I dated a guy who wasn't circumcised who showered every day and it still always smelled disgusting and turned me off.


Have you stuck your face in a bunch of women's crotches and taken a sniff?

What if research shows that women who have been circumcised (just removal of clitoral hood and labia minor) smell somewhat better than natural women? Would you favor female infant circumcision?

Fat women tend to smell worse than the more slender, What if circumcision mainly helps fat women be less smelly. Would you favor infant circumcision because the infant may grow up to be fat?

A pro-circ argument that brings up cleanliness or visual appeal that doesn't address the same issues for women is one-sided.
 
2013-09-29 09:38:22 PM
Oh good!  The anti-circumcision weenies are here!
 
2013-09-29 09:41:17 PM
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-29 09:51:41 PM

RoyBatty: DerAppie: HairBolus: they fear many would prefer to reject religion rather than have a painful operation.

Which makes me wonder, if they expect that the children aren't really all that religious and are probably breaking tons of other commandments, why bother about that one extra commandment where a piece of the body needs to be cut off?

Well, in Judaism, it's the original, fundamental contract between Jew and God and identified who was a member of the tribe.

[i.imgur.com image 763x475]

That said, my not terribly educated understanding is that throughout the centuries the amount and degree of circumcision has varied and been argued by Jewish scholars, and it is possible that it could be replaced by things like a ceremonial nicking.

(When the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested that female circumcisions might be replaced with a ceremonial nicking, the usual feminist suspects went ape shiat.)

I am not a historian, so I have no clue as to the actual history of Jewish circumcision, but I wouldn't mind seeing it replaced with a small nick.

I think a problem the MRAs have (and I am very sympathetic to MRA issues) is that often they don't focus on what are the men's issues, but instead focus on finding male issue counterparts to feminist issues and then playing the victim card as a trump.

I think most circumcisions should be eliminated. I am not sure the first step is making them illegal, that just seems to be a way to delay their eventual elimination by making it a religious war.


Man, and I thought getting that tattoo to join the crypts was a tough decision.
 
2013-09-29 10:21:13 PM
why is the circumcision thread in the geek tab?

ive taken a few geek quizs before and dont remember being asked about that
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report