I'm not wondering about detrimental effects.
Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?
- Thread starter Deranged Nasat
- Start date
I'm not wondering about detrimental effects.
Switch
Captain
I'm probably wrong. I just speculating.
See, what I'm wondering is if the circumcision has become a mark of one's national identity. Not in black and white terms, but through feelings of expectation and normality. Social pressures to conform, if you will.
A social pressure which might be reinforced by the feelings of togetherness that patriotism brings. And which in return, may reinforce those feelings of patriotism by knowing that you're branded with the mark of your national identity.
Difficult to have a "national identity" that's shared with at least one-third of the planet (if circumcised, two-thirds if not). Then again, just how many countries are there whose national colours are red, white and blue?
I don't think folks really give it that much thought one way or another.
I have previously said in this thread - if there are benefits than let men get circumcised at an age when they can give consent . Little baby boys will not be sexually active for many a year so it isn't as if there is a pressing need for them to get circumcised soon after birth.
On Independence Day during my 13th year on this Earth, my kinfolk presented me with my detached foreskin, preserved in a hermetically sealed box since the day of my birth.
To celebrate the rise of our young nation, and the transition from childhood to manhood, I stretched and fashioned my foreskin into an American flag; a mighty symbol of freedom that was as large as the 50 states of our fledgling republic in both length and breadth.
From that day forth, like so many who came before me, in both mind and body I knew that I was truly both a man and an American citizen.
That foreskin flag still flies from my front porch today, though it can get a bit crusty at times if you don't practice good hygiene and obey the flag code.
Oh, that one was worth the coffee spew.
Not if the loss of that body part has no negative result.
I work in a centre for teaching deaf and vi children. I can assure you a blind child born blind has no negative result in her own world view from being blind, nor does a child born deaf. It is the way they are and it's fine. It's the same for any child born with a disability. What they grow up with is normal. Your claim is based on the fact you know nothing else.
That you would even try to compare a circumcision with blinding a child is so absurdly ridiculous I hardly know what to say. But oh please tell me what is this horrible harm that I suffer from because I was circumcised? What amazing powers does your foreskin have that I lack?
Yes, sorry, I see what you were asking now.
Certainly I have seen the psychological effects of not having the operation ( i.e. failure to conform to a perceived societal norm), used as an argument in favour of it by Americans, which lends some credence to your idea.
I work in a centre for teaching deaf and vi children. I can assure you a blind child born blind has no negative result in her own world view from being blind, nor does a child born deaf. It is the way they are and it's fine. It's the same for any child born with a disability. What they grow up with is normal. Your claim is based on the fact you know nothing else.
You could run a seminar on how to miss the point based purely off this thread.
She wasn't comparing the two as being equivalent, she was just saying that you can't miss something you were never aware of having, which is why circumsized men are not prone to questioning their lack of a foreskin.
It's an explanation of why people harbour certain attitudes, not an attack on your manhood.
There's a lot of awesome in this post.
Switch
Captain
I'm probably wrong. I just speculating.
See, what I'm wondering is if the circumcision has become a mark of one's national identity. Not in black and white terms, but through feelings of expectation and normality. Social pressures to conform, if you will.
A social pressure which might be reinforced by the feelings of togetherness that patriotism brings. And which in return, may reinforce those feelings of patriotism by knowing that you're branded with the mark of your national identity.
Since I found out that more Americans are circumcised than not through this message board, I think it's safe to say it's not a social pressure for conformity.
At half or full mast?
"Supposed to look like"? That's a value or aesthetic judgment, not a statement of fact.
Oh nonsense, it's not a value judgement to say the penis is supposed to have a foreskin attached to it, or that removing it alters the natural look of the penis. Good grief
Any more verbal gymnastics to perform to avoid the point? No pun intended.
Switch
Captain
I don't think a foreskin is really required to make such an observation though.
Full. It's been up for more than four hours, though, so I should probably call a doctor.
I think that we all know where you stand on the issue. I did not say anything about when someone should have a circumcision (nor did the article).
Oh it's not, it was a clumsy reply to the post below (I was on my iPod and didn't want to deal with quoting at the time):
I work in a centre for teaching deaf and vi children. I can assure you a blind child born blind has no negative result in her own world view from being blind, nor does a child born deaf. It is the way they are and it's fine. It's the same for any child born with a disability. What they grow up with is normal. Your claim is based on the fact you know nothing else.
But oh please tell me what is this horrible harm that I suffer from because I was circumcised? What amazing powers does your foreskin have that I lack?
I hate every time this discussion comes up because I get incredibly curious as to what an uncircumcised penis looks like. I've never seen one, but I'm not about to go googling it either. Perhaps one day my curiosity will get the better of me.
