Conquer Club

natty dread wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Perhaps you should ask some females that have been circumcised to see if they would agree that it is the same thing.

Why not ask the males too? Males know about female circumcision as much as females know about male circumcision... your post doesn't make sense and is an emotional argument.

First are we talking all female circumcision or just a few types of it?

And sure you can ask the males though most of them I don't think are pissed that they were circumcised but also may or may not circumcize their male child. Me being one of them. I do not care that I was circumcized, my wife definitely doesn't seem to mind, however if/when we have a son, there is a pretty good likely hood that we will not circumcize him.

From my understanding, many females fear the process of reopening after being sewn shut. Also the purpose of removing the clitoral hood or clitoris is to reduce a woman's libido and try to curb premarital sex. Whereas the male circumcision is for neither of these reasons.

Just because they are both called circumcision, they were two completely different practices for two completely different reasons. Such as your example of the difference between a first term abortion; and aborting a baby for medical necessity. Though there is a bigger difference between the two types of circumcision, than their is between a early and late term abortion though we can "abort" the abortion talk given this is not the thread to do it in.

patrickaa317 wrote:From my understanding, many females fear the process of reopening after being sewn shut. Also the purpose of removing the clitoral hood or clitoris is to reduce a woman's libido and try to curb premarital sex. Whereas the male circumcision is for neither of these reasons.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? MGM in the USA started out as a "cure" for masturbation. So exactly in order to reduce libido and control people's sexuality.

MeDeFe wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:From my understanding, many females fear the process of reopening after being sewn shut. Also the purpose of removing the clitoral hood or clitoris is to reduce a woman's libido and try to curb premarital sex. Whereas the male circumcision is for neither of these reasons.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? MGM in the USA started out as a "cure" for masturbation. So exactly in order to reduce libido and control people's sexuality.

Look, I know Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer's movies have sucked lately, but I don't think there's any call to say something like that!

MeDeFe wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:From my understanding, many females fear the process of reopening after being sewn shut. Also the purpose of removing the clitoral hood or clitoris is to reduce a woman's libido and try to curb premarital sex. Whereas the male circumcision is for neither of these reasons.

You haven't been paying attention, have you? MGM in the USA started out as a "cure" for masturbation. So exactly in order to reduce libido and control people's sexuality.

First, I must say, "that sure didn't work now did it". The only way to keep a guy from masturbating is to cut off both his arms.

Because some doctor for a few years thought it would curb masturbation, that wasn't solely the reason for male circumcision whereas that is has and still is a very large reason for female circumcision.

xeno wrote:Girls like that shit better snipped trust me

Firstly, you're pretty much the last person I would ask for advice on the subject of pleasuring a woman. Secondly, the whole premise of "what girls like" doesn't even make any sense. There's no such thing as "what girls like", just as there's no such thing as "what boys like", or "what black people like", or "what red-haired people like". Do you catch my drift, or do I need to spell it out in big, blocky letters?

xeno wrote:I get compliments all the time on the roundness and how bulbous the tip of my circumcised penis is.

Congrats for getting props for your chode. You do know that compliments from your mom don't count though, right?

patrickaa317 wrote:First are we talking all female circumcision or just a few types of it?

I don't know. Are we talking about all male circumcision or just a few types of it?

patrickaa317 wrote:And sure you can ask the males though most of them I don't think are pissed that they were circumcised

Oh, we're going for anecdotal, unsubstantiated "my uncle's cousin's friend said" claims now. Well, a friend of a friend said he was circumcised and he was so pissed about it.

patrickaa317 wrote:the purpose of removing the clitoral hood or clitoris is to reduce a woman's libido and try to curb premarital sex. Whereas the male circumcision is for neither of these reasons.

Male genital mutilation is performed for similar reasons, and has similar effects. Both male and female genital mutilation have the effect of reducing sensitivity, and are performed mostly for irrational, dogmatic religious reasons. If you scroll back in the thread, you'll find links to studies that show male circumcision causing up to 75% loss of sensitivity in the penis.

patrickaa317 wrote:Just because they are both called circumcision, they were two completely different practices for two completely different reasons.

Ok, so what are these reasons then? You keep talking about vague differences in "reasons" but you're not making any kind of substantial arguments.

Also, why are you concentrating so much on the reasons? Are the reasons more important than the end result? Are you allowed to do anything to your children if you can rationalize it to yourself in a convenient way? Pedophiles would probably love that line of reasoning.

xeno wrote:Girls like that shit better snipped trust me. I get compliments all the time on the roundness and how bulbous the tip of my circumcised penis is.

Xeno probably has a point. Within North America this is unarguably true, though as the demographics of the U.S. shift with increased Hispanic immigration and decreased use of the procedure as the insurance industry limits access to optional procedures as the economic incentives to cover it become more limited under Obamacare, there may be (a) a shift of attitudes as this becomes a less common appearance, or, (b) no shift at all and the minority of men who are circumcised will find themselves neck-deep in women.

Outside of North America I posit that women might react with a similar level of apprehension that they would to any other damaged body part, such as a person who had lost their fingers or an eye or something in an industrial accident. However, also, the unusual and exotic can sometimes engender fetishism, too, so perhaps my posit is invalid.

patrickaa317 wrote:First, I must say, "that sure didn't work now did it".

This would actually be an interesting study to compare frequency of self-abuse in the US/Canada/Israel to the rest of the world to see if it is noticeably higher, lower or equal.

I'm 44, born and raised in the U.S., and I was circumsized at birth by a medical doctor in a hospital. I never thought much about it one way or another. After reading this entire thread up to this point and weighing the arguments, evidence, and references I'd side with only for medical necessity or as a free choice upon becoming an adult.

Open debate like this is the truest form of democracy I just wish EVERYONE would avoid being so hateful to one another.

New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

saxitoxin wrote:New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies contracted herpes, most likely as a result of the practice, and two of them died, according to the city’s health department. This spring, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also declared that the procedure created a risk for transmission of herpes and other pathogens, and was “not safe.”

9 with herpes over 11 years? Two dead? That's not bad enough, so formal regulation from the government isn't necessary.

If people want to associate themselves voluntarily with that kind of Orthodox Judaism, then they're free to do so--and they can incur the costs and benefits as well.

An easy solution which could reduce the risk of transmitting diseases is for the group to create a rule that requires rabbis to get tested. Having their kids be infected or killed from this lack of oversight would perhaps stimulate the concerned parents to urge the rabbis to fix this.


Furthermore, how does this:

The city Board of Health passed a regulation in September that required written parental consent before a ritual circumcision could be done.

address the issue of infected rabbis? It doesn't seem to at all.

saxitoxin wrote:New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

They had coldsores dude- herpes simplex. The issue is that they were performing an unnecessary medical procedure without any medical training on kids.

The issue ain't that they should have done a better job, they shouldn't have been doing at all.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

They had coldsores dude- herpes simplex. The issue is that they were performing an unnecessary medical procedure without any medical training on kids.

The issue ain't that they should have done a better job, they shouldn't have been doing at all.

Oh is that the issue? Well thanks for explaining it. I thought the issue was that people were upset the rabbis didn't put herbs or other seasonings on the kid before the feast began and it tasted a little bland as a result. The Zagat Guide gives Temple De Hirsch Sinai five stars after all. It would be a shame to risk that rating.

why are rabbits performing circumcisions?

Army of GOD wrote:why are rabbits performing circumcisions?

it's a tradition

<Removed>

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

They had coldsores dude- herpes simplex. The issue is that they were performing an unnecessary medical procedure without any medical training on kids.

The issue ain't that they should have done a better job, they shouldn't have been doing at all.

I don't think blowjobs by priests on little boys is the best way to perform a circumcision.

I guess it does make sense though. I understand why so many priests are pedophiles.

Rabbis dude. They get married and have kids. Take the religious hatred of priests elsewhere. That's a different issue.

Symmetry wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:New York to ban metzitzah b’peh

From 2000 to 2011, 11 babies [in New York] contracted herpes [from rabbis performing oral circumcisions].

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyreg ... ision.html

I think the bigger issue here is that this many Orthodox rabbis are walking around with the Herp.

They had coldsores dude- herpes simplex. The issue is that they were performing an unnecessary medical procedure without any medical training on kids.

The issue ain't that they should have done a better job, they shouldn't have been doing at all.

I don't think blowjobs by priests on little boys is the best way to perform a circumcision.

I guess it does make sense though. I understand why so many priests are pedophiles.

Rabbis dude. They get married and have kids. Take the religious hatred of priests elsewhere. That's a different issue.

Yes, because child molestation and cover-ups by clerics is a non-issue in Judaism.

There have been glimmers of change as a small number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, taking on longstanding religious and cultural norms, have begun to report child sexual abuse accusations against members of their own communities. But those who come forward often encounter intense intimidation from their neighbors and from rabbinical authorities, aimed at pressuring them to drop their cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyreg ... d=all&_r=0

<Removed>

If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Her Majesty wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Because the Royal Entourage arrived!

Symmetry wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Probably because there is no priests in Judaism anymore.

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Probably because there is no priests in Judaism anymore.

Religions change so fast.

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Probably because there is no priests in Judaism anymore.

Religions change so fast.

Sometimes.

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Probably because there is no priests in Judaism anymore.

Religions change so fast.

Define fast.

Seriously though, I sometimes call Rabbi's, Pastors and whatnot Priests. I tend to think of a Priest being a religious authority. Not in a good or bad sense just a word more than a title.

2dimes wrote:

Symmetry wrote:If it stood true, why'd you change it?

Probably because there is no priests in Judaism anymore.

What about Seth Cohen from TV's "The O.C."?