Originally Posted by Christian Benteke
(Post 1529222)
It takes like 20 seconds to clean your bellend.
Honestly I wish you Brits would just call it a penis. I think British English and American English respectively have better words for things (the Underground, the metric system, fullstop), but bellend just sounds horribly demeaning, and not manly at all.
Zhanteimi
12-27-2014 10:19 PM
I call the end a helmet.
Cuthbert
12-27-2014 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhateverDude
(Post 1529232)
Parents who are too douchy to take care of their children's genitals and teach them to take care of their genitals when they come of age probably aren't putting much if any thought into circumcision. You guys are acting like it's so much of a hassle that it necessitates removal. And that it's mostly only Jewish people who this concerns.
The bottom line is, imo, it's an invasion of a person's right to have a body that they're comfortable with. There are people out there who have been circumcised and wish they hadn't been. How is that not the end of this discussion?
Strong post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpnfire
(Post 1529237)
Honestly I wish you Brits would just call it a penis. I think British English and American English respectively have better words for things (the Underground, the metric system, fullstop), but bellend just sounds horribly demeaning, and not manly at all.
It's called a bellend cos it looks like the end of a bell mate, I don't think it sounds demeaning at all.
bellend just sounds horribly demeaning, and not manly at all.
maybe if they call it an EXTREME BALD EAGLE TURBO BELL END HYAHHHHH it'll be "manly" :laughing:
Janszoon
12-27-2014 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(Post 1529228)
Only if the parent takes the time.
Lots of douche parents out there.
Again, weird f*cking topic. Such a no brainer for me.
Sure, it's a no brainier for some, but for people who use their brains it's pretty reasonable to wonder, "hey, is it really justifiable to subject a baby to unnecessary surgery?"
Congrats to DwnWthVwls for doing some research. The link he posted makes a strong argument in favour of circumcision although in the end I found it to be suspiciously biased. Evidence of their bias is here, in the way that they demonize people who consider circumcision unnecessary:-
Quote:
They attempt to intimidate doctors, even mounting lawsuits that are inevitably thrown out of court. It has even been suggested that anti-circumcision groups should really be regarded as a cult devoted to worship of the foreskin - the parallels are obvious to any observer.
Not investigating very far, I found another site which seemed less biased. It notably prefixes the medical benefits of circumcision with the word “may”, indicating that the pro and con argument is still open to discussion:- Circumcision: Learn the Pros and Cons of This Common Surgery
While there is some undeniable statistical correlation between better hygiene and circumcision, imo it´s not sufficiently strong to outweigh the downside of infant circumcision: –
> it´s not essential
> it´s done without the victim´s consent (which WhateverDude rightly condemns)
> it´s irreversible
> it may lead to various problems in later life:
Spoiler for statistics I´ve already quoted:
Quote:
...one such organization distributed questionnaires to circumcised men. The complaints included prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). Psychological complaints included feelings of mutilation (60%), low self-esteem/inferiority to "intact" men (50%), genital dysmorphia (55%), rage (52%), resentment/depression (59%), violation (46%), or parental betrayal (30%). Many respondents reported that their physical/emotional suffering impeded emotional intimacy with their partner(s), resulting in sexual dysfunction. Prominent men known to be unhappy about being circumcised include Sigmund Freud, A E Houseman, W.H. Auden, Geoffrey Keynes and his brother John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist. In 1996 the British Medical Journal published a letter by 20 men saying that "we have been harmed by circumcision in childhood"; they argued that "it cannot be ethical for a doctor to amputate normal tissue from a normal child". Dr. Benjamin Spock (1903 – 1998), whose Baby and Child Care is the biggest selling American single-author book in history, originally supported circumcision but changed his mind near the end of his life.
Chula says it´s a no brainer and that newborns don´t feel sh*t. TBH I would refute both these statements. Firstly, there´s plenty to be discussed on both sides, as this thread indicates. On the second point, regarding newborn sensitivity, newborns are actually infamous for crying at the least discomfort (too hot, too cold, etc). Yes, the operation is less painful for newborns, but even though they won´t remember the trauma of circumcision, they will have to live with whatever the consequences may be for the rest of their lives - as mentioned in the statistics above.
My bottom line is that there is sufficient uncertainty over the issue that forcing an irreversible nonconsensual operation on a newborn is a mistake. Better to wait and see if health problems arise in later life; after all, not every uncircumcised male runs into the kind of problems that Chula´s and mordwry´s brothers-in-law had. The options come down to this:-
..........Infant circumcision - may cause problems in later life; can´t be undone
..........No circumcision - may cause problems in later life; circumcision with patient´s approval remains an option
To me, if the issue really were a no brainer, the no brainer would be there, between the words "can´t be undone" and "remains an option".
Congrats to DwnWthVwls for doing some research. The link he posted makes a strong argument in favour of circumcision although in the end I found it to be suspiciously biased. Evidence of their bias is here, in the way that they demonize people who consider circumcision unnecessary:-
Not investigating very far, I found another site which seemed less biased. It notably prefixes the medical benefits of circumcision with the word “may”, indicating that the pro and con argument is still open to discussion:- Circumcision: Learn the Pros and Cons of This Common Surgery
While there is some undeniable statistical correlation between better hygiene and circumcision, imo it´s not sufficiently strong to outweigh the downside of infant circumcision: –
> it´s not essential
> it´s done without the victim´s consent (which WhateverDude rightly condemns)
> it´s irreversible
> it may lead to various problems in later life:
Chula says it´s a no brainer and that newborns don´t feel sh*t. TBH I would refute both these statements. Firstly, there´s plenty to be discussed on both sides, as this thread indicates. On the second point, regarding newborn sensitivity, newborns are actually infamous for crying at the least discomfort (too hot, too cold, etc). Yes, the operation is less painful for newborns, but even though they won´t remember the trauma of circumcision, they will have to live with whatever the consequences may be for the rest of their lives - as mentioned in the statistics above.
My bottom line is that there is sufficient uncertainty over the issue that forcing an irreversible nonconsensual operation on a newborn is a mistake. Better to wait and see if health problems arise in later life; after all, not every uncircumcised male runs into the kind of problems that Chula´s and mordwry´s brothers-in-law had. The options come down to this:-
..........Infant circumcision - may cause problems in later life; can´t be undone
..........No circumcision - may cause problems in later life; circumcision with patient´s approval remains an option
To me, if the issue really were a no brainer, the no brainer would be there, between the words "can´t be undone" and "remains an option".
Very well considered points, Lisnaholic. It seems to me that the body parts we're born with are there for a reason and the burden is really on the people who want to remove them to make the case that doing so is a good idea.
Frownland
12-28-2014 09:46 AM
I'd be upset if my parents didn't circumcise me and eat the foreskin.
Like I said before, it looks a lot nicer and I'd hate to undergo cosmetic surgery as an adult to have a fancy penis. Roxxy, would it look good with a foreskin?
Chula Vista
12-28-2014 09:49 AM
Not to mention that the potential health issues with non circumcision often don't arise until a dude is pretty old.
I hope this doesn't make the Republicans look racist.
I was too lazy to read the whole thing, but I can maybe buy that he didn't know they were white supremacists, just because why would a politician shoot himself in the foot in that way? Speaking to neo-Nazis is pretty much the best way to end your political career, short of raping a ten-year-old, autistic child on national television and then proclaiming her to be terrible in the sack.
Still, how could you not know? I'm no expert on the KKK, but even I know who David Duke is. So either he's a racist or a moron. And if your politics attract that kind of element, whether you're actively courting it or not, you're still suspect.
Frownland
12-30-2014 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
(Post 1531208)
I was too lazy to read the whole thing, but I can maybe buy that he didn't know they were white supremacists, just because why would a politician shoot himself in the foot in that way? Speaking to neo-Nazis is pretty much the best way to end your political career, short of raping a ten-year-old, autistic child on national television and then proclaiming her to be terrible in the sack.
Still, how could you not know? I'm no expert on the KKK, but even I know who David Duke is. So either he's a racist or a moron. And if your politics attract that kind of element, whether you're actively courting it or not, you're still suspect.
Wait, how can you lead your local chapter and not be an expert?
He spoke at a convention for the group, so I would imagine that it was clear when he was speaking to them just who they were. It's a suspension of disbelief greater than watching a Michael Bay film to believe his story that he didn't know they what they were.
This makes me want to write an article about an MB ****storm.
I think the world needs to know about Flyingpig. Maybe he'll become internet famous and trolls will track him and Cheryl and Paul and Derek down and we'll all finally get to see them and hear all sides of the story.
Though he never showed anything quite like THAT, that teacher I mentioned a few days ago who died used to show inappropriate movies in class. Military school is far more lax than public school, though I doubt his superiors would have approved regardless. We used to have one Saturday class a month to meet the quota for how many school days we had to have, and Major Hairr wasn't having any of that ****. He'd put on some movie, like Boondock Saints (he did skip the nudity part) or Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, while he graded papers and did lesson plans.
