lol what, i'm pretty sure female circumcisions happens in like somalia, africa... i never heard of that as a practice in america.
nor had I heard of it but here you go.
When books, pamphlets, and tinctures didn't stop certain insatiable women, extreme measures could be taken. A well-known London gynecologist/surgeon named Isaac Baker-Brown thought that masturbation was the widespread cause of nervous disorders like epilepsy, and further theorized this view in his book On the Curability of Certain Forms of Insanity, Epilespsy, Catalepsy and Hysteria in Females (1866). He came up with what he thought the perfect solution to the imperfection of masturbation. In 1858, he introduced the clitoridectomy, a ferociously cruel way to ensure there were no feel-good effects from touching oneself. It became Baker-Brown's signature "quick fix" remedy for the insatiable female, and for years he "successfully" removed the clitoris on an unknown number of women. In 1867, he was banned from the London Obstetrical Society and went insane, and while the clitoridectomy was no longer practiced in Britain, it lived on in the United States well into the twentieth century.
I think it's just the mentality of some countries that what they do is right, has always been right and will always be right. There's no thought process at all. It's just, 'my country does this, and therefore this is correct'. Summed up in a single word - ignorance.
actually i said i didn't know if it was right or wrong just that it was normal and accepted.
and that's how most americans see it as well, i'm sure.
sounds to me like you think it's wrong and seem to put upon that judgement onto others as if it should be wrong, so it's really you who is deciding if it's right or wrong, in my opinion.
You might be missing out on the sexual pleasure and sensitivity that you were "designed" to enjoy because someone decided to chop you up without so much as a consultation, but that spurious hygiene claim - that's one shiny silver lining...
Actually I had no choice due to medical reasons in my teens. Still I was too young to remember it feeling any different and I certainly don't feel as if I lack pleasure but really I have no basis for comparison and it's probably best I dont hehe.
People in Europe by and large don't mutilate their babies' genitals.
Aside from there being absolutely no reason to do so, it's increasingly seen as a human rights issue. Female genital mutilation is banned. Why should a male be branded for life with an incomplete penis without his consent? What is the rush? Is it not a decision he could make for himself after sexual maturity, say 16-18?
How many 16-18 year olds, if given the opportunity, and, in all likelihood, having experienced what it's like to have sexual contact of some kind or other with the full package - so to speak - do you think would choose to have a bit of their cock cut off?
There is absolutely no comparison between male and female circumcision, which is why they don't term male circumcision "male genital mutilation". The foreskin does not affect the health or sexual satisfaction of the male, whereas female circumcision does. But I'm sure you already knew that! :rolleyes:
if something is common practice in your culture how are you supposed to see it as wrong?
sounds to me like you're trying to force your views on other people.
that's our culture as it stands, if it changes so be it.
but it's completely normal and pretty much expected for it to be so here.
i don't know if it's right or wrong, how would i know? it's just the way it is.
if i ever have a son i guess i'll have to make that final choice on what i think is right. i wasn't given a choice in the matter and things were perceived as that's just the way things are from my viewpoint.
any friends i ever had when was younger, any conversations, anything on the subject was pretty much that it was normal.
I kind of see your point. But if everyone had a similar attitude, nothing would ever change. Any wrongs that were being perpetuated would never cease. Am I mad, or is that a correct assumption?
Btw, if you have a son, you don't need to make any decision. You can wait until he is older and allow him to determine himself whether or not he goes under the knife. Is this another mad idea as far as you are concerned?
whoever told you you don't need tonsils or a gallbladder is crazy, yes you can live without both but tonsils are vital for your immune system, people who have had their tonsils removed tend to get more colds and chest infections. Your gallbladder is essential for the proper digestion of fats and carbohydrates as it does secrete some insulin. The foreskin is a defense organ, if early man had been circumcised while out hunting and practically naked, imagine the infections he would have picked up.
Good post. Can I offer a small correction?
The gall bladder stores bile which is produced by the liver and delivered into the duodenum to aid the digestion of fats. It's only removed when it is diseased or the bile duct is blocked - a very painful condition.
So I agree that you do need the gall bladder, and I agree that you also need tonsils, and I would suggest that the foreskin probably has a role as well. I'm a firm believer in trying to remain as intact as possible, personally.
The argument about cervical cancer doesn't wash either, because HPV infection (causative agent of most cervical cancer) can surely be picked up from an uncircumcised penis just as easily, if the owner is infected. I suspect that the fashion for circumcision in the US is about appearance rather than health, and I think that the fact that it's done on babies is a good reason why this operation is much rarer in the UK.
There is absolutely no comparison between male and female circumcision, which is why they don't term male circumcision "male genital mutilation". The foreskin does not affect the health or sexual satisfaction of the male, whereas female circumcision does.
The American 'thing' is to be more attractive in general. Circumcised danglewanglers look better than uncircumcised. (Yes I've experienced both and thankfully for my circumcised husband, I prefer his:D) Could it be more popular in America because they tend to consider looks over function? Just asking....
Editing to say yes I know that is a very judgmental comment presuming all Americans are the same and hold the same views. I know this is not the case.:)
I kind of see your point. But if everyone had a similar attitude, nothing would ever change. Any wrongs that were being perpetuated would never cease. Am I mad, or is that a correct assumption?
Btw, if you have a son, you don't need to make any decision. You can wait until he is older and allow him to determine himself whether or not he goes under the knife. Is this another mad idea as far as you are concerned?
well, to the son point i figure you need to make the decision then because they won't feel it sort of thing or rememeber it, just judging from my own experience i don't remember being circumcised or anything of the sort, don't remember the process anything about it all, and if i had to choose between having it done as a baby or when i was 16 i'd definitely rather it done when i was a baby.
so that's what i would base that on.
yes, you do make a point on the other thing,, if something is in fact wrong and you just continue on because it's accepted then how will it change? i agree on this point, but untill it's somehow proven to be wrong for americans what are we supposed to do? it's just accepted and a common practice.
since it's been such a common thing throughout my whole, i have a hard time seeing it as "wrong", i don't for sure know it's right either. it just is the way it is at the moment.
personally, i prefer the way my penis looks uncircumsized then what it looks like not, so if i had my choice i would probably still have chosen to get it done just because of the look factor. but at the same point it could be just cuz that "look" seems more normal to me.
who the hell knows, ultimately. don't even know why i'm discussion penises lol. :eek:
it's just a common thing in america, if that offends some people i apologize. don't know what else to say.
The gall bladder stores bile which is produced by the liver and delivered into the duodenum to aid the digestion of fats. It's only removed when it is diseased or the bile duct is blocked - a very painful condition.
So I agree that you do need the gall bladder, and I agree that you also need tonsils, and I would suggest that the foreskin probably has a role as well. I'm a firm believer in trying to remain as intact as possible, personally.
The argument about cervical cancer doesn't wash either, because HPV infection (causative agent of most cervical cancer) can surely be picked up from an uncircumcised penis just as easily, if the owner is infected. I suspect that the fashion for circumcision in the US is about appearance rather than health, and I think that the fact that it's done on babies is a good reason why this operation is much rarer in the UK.[/QUOTE just had my gall bladder removed in August after very painful bouts of pain.. and thankful its gone now.. and was told by two surgeons that its not required..we can live without one , same with tonsils..
actually i said i didn't know if it was right or wrong just that it was normal and accepted.
and that's how most americans see it as well, i'm sure.
sounds to me like you think it's wrong and seem to put upon that judgement onto others as if it should be wrong, so it's really you who is deciding if it's right or wrong, in my opinion.
My post about certain countries' attitudes was not necessarily directed at you or your country! Stop being so touchy.
Well speaking from a female point of view I would have thought it more healthy to have a foreskin than not providng the aparatus is regularly washed.
I see it as natures way of protecting something delicate just like the eyelids do, I would also assume sexually it would make the penis less sensitive without the foreskin???
and I think that the fact that it's done on babies is a good reason why this operation is much rarer in the UK.
The difference in take up is probably effected by historical reasons and is maintained because it is offered in US hospitals as a choice but it is not on the NHS. Nobody here asks you if you want it lopped of while you are in the hospital as they do in the US. In the UK you have to have an active reason to seek it out.
The foreskin does not affect the health or sexual satisfaction of the male...
"the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."
"The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."
Medical studies are yet to agree definitively - but it's good to know you've got all the answers and can save them the trouble of researching any further.
i was more referring to now, i know that in the past alot of questionable things went on... they used to drill into people's skulls when people had mental health issues and kinds of stuff like that, burning people, torture, etc
so it wouldn't suprise me if it happened at some point.
i'm more of a "now" kind of person, and i've never heard of female mutilation (as it's known now) being accepted in any way, shape or form.
that's basically what i meant, if it ever was i haven't a clue.
i'm certainly no scholor on the subject of circumcision that's for sure.
it was an interesting conversation, but i've had my fill of penis and circumcision talk for a long time.
It was never common practice in the US - or indeed in the UK, where it began, according to your source.
And the reality is that FGM still happens, illegally, in both the US and the UK, and that THAT is a real, and current, problem.
As a result of immigration, FGM spread to Australia, Europe, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. As Western governments became more aware of the practice, legislation was passed to make it a criminal offence, though enforcement may be a low priority. Sweden passed legislation in 1982, the first Western country to do so.[72] It is outlawed in New Zealand[73] and in all Australian states and territories, and is a crime under section 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada.[74] It became illegal in the United States on 30 March 1997, though according to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimate, 168,000 girls living there as of 1997 had undergone it or are at risk.[75] Nineteen-year-old Fauziya Kasinga, a member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM, setting a precedent in U.S. immigration law because FGM was for the first time accepted as a form of persecution.[76]
In the UK, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 outlawed the procedure in Britain itself, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 made it an offence for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on British citizens or permanent residents.[77] The Times reported in 2009 that there are 500 victims of FGM every year in the UK, but there have been no prosecutions. According to the Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development, 66,000 women in England and Wales have experienced FGM, with 7,000 girls at risk. Families who have immigrated from practising countries may send their daughters there to undergo FGM, ostensibly to visit a relative, or may fly in circumcisers, known as "house doctors" because they conduct the procedure in people's homes.[78] The Guardian writes that the six-week-long school summer holiday in the UK is the most dangerous time of the year for these girls, a convenient time to carry out the procedure because they need several weeks to heal before returning to school.[77]
i was more referring to now, i know that in the past alot of questionable things went on... they used to drill into people's skulls when people had mental health issues and kinds of stuff like that, burning people, torture, etc
so it wouldn't suprise me if it happened at some point.
i'm more of a "now" kind of person, and i've never heard of female mutilation (as it's known now) being accepted in any way, shape or form.
that's basically what i meant, if it ever was i haven't a clue.
i'm now scholor on the subject of circumcision that's for sure.
it was an interesting conversation, but i've had my fill of penis and circumcision talk for a long time.
good day to you, sirs and ladies.
If it used to be accepted though, how did it ever change, because I thought the status quo is 'it's normal NOW, therefore I just accept it'? Lol. Enjoy your day.
Comments
nor had I heard of it but here you go.
When books, pamphlets, and tinctures didn't stop certain insatiable women, extreme measures could be taken. A well-known London gynecologist/surgeon named Isaac Baker-Brown thought that masturbation was the widespread cause of nervous disorders like epilepsy, and further theorized this view in his book On the Curability of Certain Forms of Insanity, Epilespsy, Catalepsy and Hysteria in Females (1866). He came up with what he thought the perfect solution to the imperfection of masturbation. In 1858, he introduced the clitoridectomy, a ferociously cruel way to ensure there were no feel-good effects from touching oneself. It became Baker-Brown's signature "quick fix" remedy for the insatiable female, and for years he "successfully" removed the clitoris on an unknown number of women. In 1867, he was banned from the London Obstetrical Society and went insane, and while the clitoridectomy was no longer practiced in Britain, it lived on in the United States well into the twentieth century.
http://www.realitysandwich.com/masturbation_victorian_age
Lol. Oh, would you look at that? Someone's just bought my last c*ck sock on eBay!
actually i said i didn't know if it was right or wrong just that it was normal and accepted.
and that's how most americans see it as well, i'm sure.
sounds to me like you think it's wrong and seem to put upon that judgement onto others as if it should be wrong, so it's really you who is deciding if it's right or wrong, in my opinion.
Actually I had no choice due to medical reasons in my teens. Still I was too young to remember it feeling any different and I certainly don't feel as if I lack pleasure but really I have no basis for comparison and it's probably best I dont hehe.
There is absolutely no comparison between male and female circumcision, which is why they don't term male circumcision "male genital mutilation". The foreskin does not affect the health or sexual satisfaction of the male, whereas female circumcision does. But I'm sure you already knew that! :rolleyes:
I kind of see your point. But if everyone had a similar attitude, nothing would ever change. Any wrongs that were being perpetuated would never cease. Am I mad, or is that a correct assumption?
Btw, if you have a son, you don't need to make any decision. You can wait until he is older and allow him to determine himself whether or not he goes under the knife. Is this another mad idea as far as you are concerned?
Good post. Can I offer a small correction?
The gall bladder stores bile which is produced by the liver and delivered into the duodenum to aid the digestion of fats. It's only removed when it is diseased or the bile duct is blocked - a very painful condition.
So I agree that you do need the gall bladder, and I agree that you also need tonsils, and I would suggest that the foreskin probably has a role as well. I'm a firm believer in trying to remain as intact as possible, personally.
The argument about cervical cancer doesn't wash either, because HPV infection (causative agent of most cervical cancer) can surely be picked up from an uncircumcised penis just as easily, if the owner is infected. I suspect that the fashion for circumcision in the US is about appearance rather than health, and I think that the fact that it's done on babies is a good reason why this operation is much rarer in the UK.
Please ask the person that originally made the statement...
http://www.realitysandwich.com/masturbation_victorian_age
Yes it does.
Editing to say yes I know that is a very judgmental comment presuming all Americans are the same and hold the same views. I know this is not the case.:)
Well it's no skin off of my nose..........
well, to the son point i figure you need to make the decision then because they won't feel it sort of thing or rememeber it, just judging from my own experience i don't remember being circumcised or anything of the sort, don't remember the process anything about it all, and if i had to choose between having it done as a baby or when i was 16 i'd definitely rather it done when i was a baby.
so that's what i would base that on.
yes, you do make a point on the other thing,, if something is in fact wrong and you just continue on because it's accepted then how will it change? i agree on this point, but untill it's somehow proven to be wrong for americans what are we supposed to do? it's just accepted and a common practice.
since it's been such a common thing throughout my whole, i have a hard time seeing it as "wrong", i don't for sure know it's right either. it just is the way it is at the moment.
personally, i prefer the way my penis looks uncircumsized then what it looks like not, so if i had my choice i would probably still have chosen to get it done just because of the look factor. but at the same point it could be just cuz that "look" seems more normal to me.
who the hell knows, ultimately. don't even know why i'm discussion penises lol. :eek:
it's just a common thing in america, if that offends some people i apologize. don't know what else to say.
My post about certain countries' attitudes was not necessarily directed at you or your country! Stop being so touchy.
I see it as natures way of protecting something delicate just like the eyelids do, I would also assume sexually it would make the penis less sensitive without the foreskin???
http://www.realitysandwich.com/masturbation_victorian_age
The difference in take up is probably effected by historical reasons and is maintained because it is offered in US hospitals as a choice but it is not on the NHS. Nobody here asks you if you want it lopped of while you are in the hospital as they do in the US. In the UK you have to have an active reason to seek it out.
"the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs
Against:
"The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html
Medical studies are yet to agree definitively - but it's good to know you've got all the answers and can save them the trouble of researching any further.
i was more referring to now, i know that in the past alot of questionable things went on... they used to drill into people's skulls when people had mental health issues and kinds of stuff like that, burning people, torture, etc
so it wouldn't suprise me if it happened at some point.
i'm more of a "now" kind of person, and i've never heard of female mutilation (as it's known now) being accepted in any way, shape or form.
that's basically what i meant, if it ever was i haven't a clue.
i'm certainly no scholor on the subject of circumcision that's for sure.
it was an interesting conversation, but i've had my fill of penis and circumcision talk for a long time.
good day to you, sirs and ladies.
It was never common practice in the US - or indeed in the UK, where it began, according to your source.
And the reality is that FGM still happens, illegally, in both the US and the UK, and that THAT is a real, and current, problem.
As a result of immigration, FGM spread to Australia, Europe, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. As Western governments became more aware of the practice, legislation was passed to make it a criminal offence, though enforcement may be a low priority. Sweden passed legislation in 1982, the first Western country to do so.[72] It is outlawed in New Zealand[73] and in all Australian states and territories, and is a crime under section 268 of the Criminal Code of Canada.[74] It became illegal in the United States on 30 March 1997, though according to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimate, 168,000 girls living there as of 1997 had undergone it or are at risk.[75] Nineteen-year-old Fauziya Kasinga, a member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM, setting a precedent in U.S. immigration law because FGM was for the first time accepted as a form of persecution.[76]
In the UK, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 outlawed the procedure in Britain itself, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 made it an offence for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on British citizens or permanent residents.[77] The Times reported in 2009 that there are 500 victims of FGM every year in the UK, but there have been no prosecutions. According to the Foundation for Women's Health, Research and Development, 66,000 women in England and Wales have experienced FGM, with 7,000 girls at risk. Families who have immigrated from practising countries may send their daughters there to undergo FGM, ostensibly to visit a relative, or may fly in circumcisers, known as "house doctors" because they conduct the procedure in people's homes.[78] The Guardian writes that the six-week-long school summer holiday in the UK is the most dangerous time of the year for these girls, a convenient time to carry out the procedure because they need several weeks to heal before returning to school.[77]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
If it used to be accepted though, how did it ever change, because I thought the status quo is 'it's normal NOW, therefore I just accept it'? Lol. Enjoy your day.
No it doesn't.