Would you circumcise your son?

[Anonymous]

Any son of mine is getting snipped as soon as he's born.

Yes

No

[sage2021]

Back in the old days, it was kind of done automatically if you gave birth to a boy. Everyone did it with their boys, unless for some reason you preferred not to.
But since reading up on it on the internet, I have come to know now that it is incredibly painful for the baby boy. I saw my little boy screaming his head off and his body and face turned all pink from the pain.
The other downside to getting snipped I'd that the doctor cuts valuable nerves down there which give the man so much more pleasure during sexual activity.
If they don't get snipped, they must always be aware that a fowel order accumulates pretty fast and they must keep it clean down there.
You want a girl to never want to see you again? Just let her have a whiff of an uncircumcised smelly penis. Eww!

[strateguy632]

so european men are stinky?

[aceleon]

for adding to this, getting rid of the nerves that creates that pleasure actually makes men lasting longer during sex so i say anything that end good is good.

[sage2021]

@strateguy632
Yes, I'm afraid so. And there's nothing that can be done about it either!

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

I wouldn’t. Why would someone sacrifice their own child for such pain?

What kind of love is that?

Aren’t we supposed to protect those we love? We aren’t supposed to mutilate their body.

People do such things to their own babies and then exact those people judge you…

[Kaneki05]

As someone who just had done it as an adult, I can safely say yes. It's much more of a pain and ordeal to have it later on so having it sooner than just hoping nothing is wrong in the future like Phimosis then it been so.

People say oh they can wait until older until they choose to do it. But you really don't want this pain, and having it swollen and trying not get hard for the next 2 months it's not fun.

[strateguy632]

that doesn't happen to everyone so unlikely.

[Kaneki05]

Indeed but it solves the what could become a problem much sooner and easier.

[strateguy632]

despite bias in u. s., still American academy pediatric a. a. p. published in the text "not recommended" to cut. doctors know health and said not cut

the fact that someone wrote differently in abstract, which should summarize the content, is criminal.

[bolverk]

No I would not circumcise my son and if you would, would you also insist on any of your female children having to undergo female genital mutilation (FMG)? It amounts to the same thing!

Circumcision is not common outside the US, unless it is for religious, medical and cultural reasons, and then usually the reason is a tight/trapped foreskin,

It is so common in the US because it is a revenue stream for doctors as 'Big Pharma' pay top prices from the foreskins as they use them in cosmetics.

In the United States, up to 60% of baby boys are circumcised. Around the world, the rate is about 33% of males. The highest rates of circumcision are in the U. S., Middle East and South Korea. It’s much less common in Europe,

[JustinTheGreat]

No. I think it’s such an unnecessary procedure to do to a newborn.
And people only do it because “it looks better.” (Besides religious reasons) I think it’s weird to be worried about what people think of the appearance of your childs penis lol

I think it’s something they should be able to choose when they’re older.

[Anonymous]

No one does that to women. So it shouldn't be done to men.

[bolverk]

In some societies female children having to undergo female genital mutilation (FMG)? It amounts to the same thing!

[Jennz6]

I think you should let your boy decide when he grown up

[NikolaiIvanovB41]

It'll be permanent pain for him if he's older. It's not going to heal properly the older he is.

[Jennz6]

@NikolaiIvanovB41 how do you know?

[NikolaiIvanovB41]

Cause the head of the penis is very sensitive. If a 30 year old gets it remove it will hurt like hell when his head touch his underwear.

I know a guy who got it done back when he was 13 and he still has pain on his head as an adult right now. It's not extremely painfully, but he was 20 or in his 30s it would hurt like he'll for him. The older the person the worse it will be.

[Sunnybeach123]

@NikolaiIvanovB41 I'm circumcised. It's painless.

[NikolaiIvanovB41]

@Sunnybeach123 When did you get it done?

[NikolaiIvanovB41]

@Sunnybeach123 I am talking about a new born getting circumstanced. I am talking about person old enough to make the choice.

[Jennz6]

@NikolaiIvanovB41 I know

[Nifrayu]

@NikolaiIvanovB41 nobody is saying someone can't get circumcised as an adult. That's consensual.

[AmeerX]

@jennz6 he is right circumcision late in age is very painful

[Nifrayu]

@AmeerX it's a lot easier for an adult to undergo circumcision than foreskin restoration.

[Kaneki05]

Just had it done, and yup it's painful. Wish my mother had snipped me as a child.

[Apple1996]

Nope i have 4 sons and they are all intact. I'd rather leave them with their whole body so they can choose later on what they wanna do with it. Their body so their choice

[HelpfulWoman]

No. I don't agree with mutilating children. Funny how people don't see how genital mutilation isn't okay.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I would. No boy deserves to go through life with a grotesque looking penis.

[ThebestIndian]

lol.

[integrale77]

What's so grotesque about a natural looking penis.
My fiancé certainly likes mine

[bolverk]

Would you also insist on any of your female children having to undergo female genital mutilation (FMG)? It amounts to the same thing!

[Nifrayu]

Boys have the same right to intact genitals as females and deserve the same respect. Nobody deserves forced genital mutilation.

[matchrestore]

I have a 5 year old son and he is not circumcised.

[jjj101010]

I it’s a terrible thing that can’t be reversed and the child has no choice in it and no grown adult would choose it unless medically necessary. It should be illegal, it’s male genital mutilation

[Filthy_Immigrant]

fuck no! God or whoever created us gave us that foreskin for a reason

[zagor]

To run naked through the brush? Unless you're on "Naked and Afraid" when is that going to come into play?

[Nifrayu]

@zagor what's your point?

[Filthy_Immigrant]

@zagor not sure where that came from but no, it’s simply to enjoy procreating the way we humans were made to

[zagor]

@Nifrayu That was the reason for the foreskin; to protect the head of the penis. Not needed if wearing underwear.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

@zagor then I guess we should all shave our heads for the fact that our hair is not needed if wearing a hat or a helmet

[zagor]

Most people don't walk around with a hat. Almost no one in First World countries walks around without pants of some sort.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

@zagor you're failing to see the point. the human body does not have the ability to predict the future.

and no, that is not the only reason God (or whoever created us) gave us the foreskin. the foreskin is there to grant us the feeling of pleasure that we human beings were design to feel during procreation. by removing that from your son you are literally taking away something that is part of his biolgy.

[zagor]

I haven't read any evidence that having a foreskin enhances pleasure. I've enjoyed sex just fine without one.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

@zagor there's no need for scientific evidence, its common sense. and how the fuck you know about enjoying sex if you clearly never fucked with your foreskin intact to begin with?

also there is evidence that we humans only use 10% of our brains, does that mean is ok to remove yhe other chunck of our brain that makes the other 90% we dont use?

[Nifrayu]

@zagor but what is your point?

[zagor]

Actually the 10% of brains thing is a myth.

There IS evidence that it (not the brain thing) reduces incidences of some cancers.

[Nifrayu]

What do people have against body autonomy. Nobody should ever be forced to live with an irreversible elective body modification that we never asked for nor.

[ImalwaysrightOK]

So basically you support male genital mutilation. Good to know. How do you feel about fathers permanently mutilating their daughters?

[crmoore]

Mutilate is an immature misrepresentation. And under that logic, piercing a child's ears could, too, be considered "mutilating."

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore grow up. What was done to us was nothing more than mutilation.

[crmoore]

Based on what do I supposedly need to grow up? And you're just repeating yourself. You're not supporting your stance whatsoever (either of them, to be frank). We've made no progress in this discussion. Do you intend to change that?

[crmoore]

My mistake, you're just repeating what your side of the argument has already said* (not necessarily repeating yourself).

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore based on the fact that you're belittling the way we were violated. Stop playing dumb and grow the hell up. We're not exaggerating and we are not immature for speaking out against the way we were violated and calling it what it is. It's mutilation by definition. Not and exaggeration.

[jahaims]

Mutilate: inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.

Disfiguring: spoiling the appearance of a person or thing.
If you are going to sit here and pretend like an ear piercing and cutting off a piece of human genitals are the same thing because of a technical definition, then you are willfully ignorant to justify a point or you don't understand that existence is nuanced. For the record, I am against a child getting their ear pierced until they are old enough to consent. With an ear piercing, you can remove it and have little to no lasting effects. With circumcision you experience tissue damage to a sex organ that relies on stimulation to work properly. A simple ear piercing doesn't spoil the appearance of a person because it can be removed without it being noticed. So, an ear piercing doesn't fit the definition of mutilation anyway.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

I'm not belittling, at least not in the spirit of what the term is meant to portray. I'm not being condescending, I'm not comparing two or more things with the intent of making someone or something feel or come across as lesser than the other. That'd be like me asking you to what extent you think obesity is a problem and you being like "I don't think it's that big of a deal" and then me responding "wow you're belittling obesity" because I happen to think it's more of a problem than you do (hypothetically). But in reality you're just expressing your opinion on what extent you think it's an issue, not "belittling."

You could argue based on the definition that because we don't agree to what extent circumcision is an issue then I must be belittling, but I think you and everyone else knows I'm not belittling. If I was making fun of you or others for your opinions, yes, I'd be belittling. But I'm not.

Additionally, I haven't actually called into question "the way you were violated," I said his representation of circumcision is immature and inaccurate, I could still be of the opinion that you have been violated in addition to having that opinion. So I don't mean to be rude but I can't say I think your line of reasoning is all that sound.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

Also, you, ironically, are misrepresenting my stance. I did not say "you are exaggerating and immature for speaking out against the way you were violated" I said (or implied) "they way you are representing circumcision is immature and inaccurate." I'm not saying "you shouldn't speak out against it" I'm saying "you shouldn't regard it as something it is not." It CAN still arguably be a violation without it being mutilation.

I'm not sure I fully agree, perhaps with a bit of convincing and contemplation I will, but I see your point about it being a violation. But what it is most certainly not is mutilation.

The definition, according to Merriam Webster (link below), states two definitions. 1. "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect." 2. "to cut off or cause severe damage to a limb or essential part of."

(Link: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilate )

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

So, what is a "radical alteration"? And what is "severe damage"? Is it subjective? Or is there a specific number of cells that must be destroyed or removed to be mutilation? If I cut off a skintag, did I mutilate myself? nearly everyone would say no. If I cut off my arm, most would say yes. But what is the threshold between those two extremes that makes something "radically altered" or "severely damaged"? I'm sure many people would disagree on where that point is. And I think the spirit of the term "mutilation" often refers to horrific, bloody instances, not surgical operations.

I mean, is removing a cancerous appendage mutilation? Because you are literally cutting off a leg for example. That's a "radical alteration," and you do inflict "severe damage" in the process (albeit for the greater good of the rest of the body). Do you agree that the doctor mutilated their patient by amputating their patient's leg? Or perhaps "mutilate" is used to refer to other things? If you do say "yes, the doctor mutilated their patient" then I'd argue you're being pedantic rather than practical. And I'd also ask you if you think that if you said that to someone, do you think you'd accurately represent to that person what the doctor did? Would they be thinking of the same thing you are?

[crmoore]

@jahaims

Circumcision is not "violent" (per your definition), it's surgical. That'd be like saying surgery is mutilation because surgery is violent (it's not).

Firstly, I don't know where you got your definition from. But Merriam Webster defines it two ways. 1. "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect." 2. "to cut off or cause severe damage to a limb or essential part of."

But let's for a moment assume you are correct, and "inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on" is correct. Circumcision is not violent. Unless of course you try to suggest definitions like "marked by the use of usually harmful or destructive physical force" or "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage" (all from Merriam Webster) of which things like hammering a nail, driving a car, or even accidentally bonking your head (destroying brain cells) would all fall under the definition of "violent." But we all know how reasonable those sort of assertions might be. So, feel free to explain to me what is violent about circumcision.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

@jahaims

As for "disfiguring," Merriam Webster defines it as "to impair (as in beauty) by deep and persistent injuries." Firstly, beauty is subjective. Someone might find earrings or tattoos aesthetically displeasing, render the piercings (present in both piercing the ears and piercing the skin to inject the ink) a "disfigurement." But analogies aside (since you don't seem to be a fan of them), do people find circumcised penises "to have had its appearance spoiled"? Coincidentally, I've seen a number of posts recently that suggest otherwise. Not to say few people think otherwise, it appears opposing opinions are often somewhat balanced. But then it poses the question "is it disfigurement (and thus mutilation) when the girl dislikes the aesthetic, and is it no longer disfigurement (and thus mutilation) when the girl does like it?" Or based on what would you say it is definitively "disfigurement," defined by you as "spoiling the appearance of a person or thing"?

And I didn't say they're "the same thing." I said if we use definitions of labels loosely, like IamalwaysRightOK, Nifrayu, and you have, then things such as an ear piercing or a tattoo, indeed, are mutilations. I apologize in advance for reciprocating your derisiveness, but I suppose if you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen, right?

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

@jahaims

Firstly, you call into question my understanding of nuance, yet appear to suggest that my point was to conflate ear-piercing with circumcision, when I never suggest the two are the same. A bike and a van are both vehicles, but they are not the same. Under loose interpretations of definitions (that are still wrongful), circumcision and ear-piercing are both mutilation, but that doesn't make them the same. So, ironically, you struggle to understand nuance, not me, because you fail not realize that pointing out mutual qualities is not suggesting equivalence in entirety.

Secondly, due to your difficulties understanding nuance, you appear to not understand that my example of ear-piercing being mutilation was an analogy of absurdity. Meaning that suggestion that ear-piercing is mutilation is completely ridiculous, and thus, suggesting circumcision is mutilation, too, is ridiculous. Yet you suggest I was "pretending" as though I believed ear-piercing is mutilation, when I was pointing out precisely the opposite.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

@jahaims

And I see your point about a child waiting to get their ears pierced, and that also applies to circumcision. I may not fully agree at this moment but I absolutely believe there are very compelling arguments on that side. My stance (in essence, tangentially things may have been expressed) was not to question whether circumcision was justified, it was whether or not it is mutilation.

I welcome your tangential opinions, but arguing that a piercing can be effectively undone and circumcision cannot is valid, but it does not validate whether circumcision is mutilation.

And yes, I agree, "an ear piercing doesn't fit the definition of mutilation." I never suggested it was, I said "And under that logic, piercing a child's ears could, too, be considered 'mutilating.'" I didn't say "I think" or "under my logic" I said "under that logic," referring to my opposition's (faulty) logic.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore I am calling it what it is. It is mutilation by definition. It permanently disfigured my penis. My prepuce was destroyed/cut away. My frenulum was ablated. Half of the skin on my penis is missing. And none of that needed to happen as I had no medical problem, no complications and I was a perfectly healthy infant. For you to say that it's immature for me to refer to what was done to me as mutilation or and exaggeration is pathetically absurd.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu I get the feeling you didn't read my response, because I've already refuted the points you're making. And you have not provided a rebuttal to my refutation. We've made no progress in this discussion.

If my stance is pathetic and absurd, then I'd presume you'd have no problem refuting to my points. So please, refute away.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore why do you want to argue about the semantics so much? Why does it even bother you that we use the word mutilation?

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu Why aren't you refuting my points?

And a couple reasons. For one, I find debate gratifying. Secondly, I believe forgoing rationale in favor of what, with all due respect, I believe to be emotionally-governed prospects is one of a number of notable things holding humanity back. So I'll call it out when I see it. Lastly, you're indirectly, and wrongfully, deriding anyone who supports circumcision, you're also dick-shaming anyone who has had circumcision, suggesting their genitals are (put kindly) unsightly or aesthetically displeasing. Put bluntly (and more accurately), however, you're suggesting their genitals are mangled, horrific, and beyond redemption.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore well I don't find this gratifying. This is a very stressful and triggering topic for me.
I didn't dick shame any. Get real. The shame is on our parents and the doctors for what they did to us. We have nothing to be ashamed. We did nothing wrong.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu Well I'm sorry to hear about those feelings, truly. However, I can't let sympathy and compassion inhibit what I believe is right. In the same way that I won't stay quite when a man speaks poorly of woman as a whole just because he has had traumatic experiences with one or more women, I shouldn't stay quite and let someone deride circumcision supporters in unjust ways. If this is stressful, I heavily implore you to not engage in these discussions, and cease engaging in this one. But for as long as you continue making points here that I believe are unmerited, I will express my perspective.

For example, you say you did not dick shame anyone. Yet earlier today you made this comment: "I am calling it what it is. It is mutilation by definition. It permanently disfigured my penis."

According to you, circumcision is a mutilating disfigurement. And as others have mentioned, disfigurement means "to impair (as in beauty) by deep and persistent injuries" (according to Merriam Webster). Considering the weight that the term "disfigurement" holds (rather than something like "unappealing"), it appears that you believe that circumcised penises are grotesque, or something of that nature/degree. And if not grotesque, what other 'aesthetically displeasing' adjective would you use? Either way it appears clear that you view the sight of circumcised penises as bad. And that is absolutely shaming those who have been circumcised.

And of course, very few people ever make the decisions to circumcise themselves. But to those who have been circumcised, you're saying they have an unappealing penis. People can and do feel shame for qualities they have that they had no control over.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore so what does that have to do with me? I'm not doing anything unjust.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu Well I'd suggest regarding another person's genitals in that way is unjust, for one thing. But if you don't mind, I'd like to take a different approach to the discussion.

Rather than being purely negative, perhaps I can offer constructive criticism. Rather than suggesting that circumcised penises are mutilated and disfigured, you could express your opinion in something like the following manner:

"While I respect the opinions of others (despite feeling quite passionate about the topic), I do firmly believe that circumcision is not a healthy procedure, and (with all due respect) I also may call into question the morality of doing so to a baby that had no choice in the matter. Tangentially, and while I mean no disrespect to those who have had circumcision, I also feel as though their could be some aesthetic inhibitions that come from the procedure. And for the sake of every young boy, I'd encourage you (/others) to reconsider the practice."

This is a respectful, non-offensive expression of disagreement. A farcry from "circumcision is mutilation" (and what that suggests parents are by partaking in it). And that's not to say you can't think circumcision is mutilation, you absolutely can. I'm just saying that there are kinder, more considerate, more constructive, more productive ways of expressing that opinion. Few people are going to find "circumcision is mutilation" as palatable, let alone digestible. If you truly believe circumcision is wrong, you should do your best to express your opinion in the most receptive way possible. But I personally feel as though you may have let emotions influence how you're depicting and regarding the subject (which will all have done, and will do again, but it is something we should try to lessen or overcome).

[crmoore]

which we all have done*

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore I'm not speaking against consensual circumcision. Nor am I interested in discussing that. This nothing to do with health. This is about ethics, consent and basic human rights. I haven't said one word about health effects. That's not the point. I'm only interested in speaking out against forced genital mutilation. To spread awareness and protect future generations from the same violation that nobody protected us from.

[crmoore]

Then there's not much point in continuing the discussion, as I'm debating whether it is mutilation, not the ethics of it.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore I thought we settled that part already. The definition of mutilation is pretty clear to me.

[crmoore]

We didn't settle it. I provided refutation and you didn't address or refute it. But I thought a moment ago you said you are only interested in discussing the ethics of circumcision, not the semantics of 'mutilation'?

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore what exactly did you think you refuted?

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore I argued simply that it's mutilation by definition. The definition is clear. So if you are arguing that it doesn't fit the definition, then simply explain why in a concise way.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

I already explained why. It might not be concise enough for your preference, and that's understandable, but I did refute it. While I am (possibly) willing to exert the effort to state my stance again (reluctantly), I think the reasonable option is that you simply respond to what I've already said, not me repeating myself.

One of my concerns though is that given the history of this conversation, I'm not sure how confident I am that you'd actually address or refute my points. I'm asking you, politely, to read the second half of the 8th comment to this post, continued into the 9th comment to this post. This is where I call into question whether circumcision is mutilation.

And if your refutation regards "disfigurement" (which you've mentioned before), then you'll need to refute my comments on that in comment 11. I also directly addressed you in my response to your use of "disfigurement" in comment 19.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore your example about the skin tag doesn't relate to this. Skin tags are not a typical part of our anatomy. It's considered a deformity or an imperfection. Removing a skin tag is not mutilation in my opinion.
What we are talking about is not the same thing as addressing a deformity, imperfection, complication, nor a medical problem. What was removed from us was a perfectly normal, healthy and functional part of our anatomy.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore violence and surgery are not mutually exclusive. Performing radically unethical surgery on a nonconsenting individual is violence. I've explained this before. I had no medical problem, no complications and no deformities and yet they forcefully cut away a perfectly normal healthy and functional part of my anatomy regardless. That's violence. All they did was harm me. Just because it was done surgically doesn't mean it wasn't violent. Violent is defined as using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Physical force was used on me and all it did was hurt and damage my penis. What was done to me was an act of violence. Don't you dare tell me it wasn't.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

This is exactly what I figured would happen, you're very selective with what you want to address and refute. And I don't mean to be rude but you seemingly don't understand what was said to begin with. You say "your example about the skin tag doesn't relate to this. Skin tags are not a typical part of our anatomy. It's considered a deformity or an imperfection. Removing a skin tag is not mutilation in my opinion."

Yet my comment on skin tags was "If I cut off a skintag, did I mutilate myself? nearly everyone would say no." So I said removing skin tags is NOT mutilation, and your response is 'removing skin tags is not mutilation' (paraphrased). You just repeated the exact sentiment I already made.

Additionally, the point of mentioning skin tags was to set examples on extreme ends of the spectrum of bodily alteration, to point out what is properly considered "mutilation." I made the point that removing a skin tag is not, but cutting my arm off is. So at some point along that spectrum of bodily alteration the severity and radicality make something mutilation. So when you say "your example about skin tag doesn't relate to this," not only would that be false if your initial interpretation was correct, because it'd be an example of a technically accurate yet wrongfully loose interpretation of the definition of mutilation. But even still, your interpretation wasn't correct. And my comment about skin tags was related to this discussion because it exemplifies labels, definitions, and whether they apply to things.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

As yet another example of technically correct but clearly faulty loose interpretations of a label, one of the two definitions of mutilation is "to cut off or cause severe damage to a limb or essential part of," and you might say "well a skin tag isn't a limb" and then I could respond, well the definition of limb is "one of the projecting paired appendages (such as wings) of an animal body used especially for movement and grasping but sometimes modified into sensory or sexual organs," so if I have a pair of skintags, they are both projecting, and they are a sensory organ (as all skin is). So, therefore, skintags are limbs and cutting them off is mutilation.

But I'm sure you see how loose of an interpretation of those definitions are. Despite that sound logic, I would hope it is clear to us both that skin tags are not limbs. And that's precisely what you are doing. At best you are loosely interpreting the definitions to wrongfully attribute them to circumcision, and at worst you are outright wrong about whether the definition is applicable.

[crmoore]

@Nifrayu

Here you are stating it is violence, but not refuting my previous refutations on whether surgery is violence. And no where in the definition of violence does it state anything about radical unethical behavior, or even non-consenting individuals (I'm sure we both can agree that kickboxing is violent, despite it being consensual). And yeah, here you go again loosely interpreting the definition. You could argue the doctor's intention is to "harm or damage you" when their intention is to help you. Yeah, the cells in your body are harmed or damaged in the process but that's true for literally all surgery. Would you say it's a reasonable description to say every time a doctor enacts surgery, he is intending to hurt and damage you? Obviously not. And every time a doctor enacts surgery, he's doing so forcefully. Your skin has resistance, and he forced that blade to puncture that skin. He forcefully harmed you, right? Technically yes, practically no. Your loose interpretations are nothing but pedantic technicalities that you manipulate to get your way, they are not reasonable suggestions.

And I'll be honest, I don't know if I'm going to respond after this. I gave you many opportunities to have a proper discussion, and when I explicitly asked you to properly address my points, you failed to do so. So I'm not sure I'm going to exert any more energy when the fruits of that energy will just be ignored.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore so if you were already aware that your opinion on skin tags doesn't conflict with anything I was saying, then why did you even mention them? This is what I meant when I suggested you be more concise in your argument. You use twice as many words to explain half as much and it's very frustrating to read.

[Nifrayu]

@crmoore I did not loosely interpret the definition of violence. My statement of it's definition was copied and pasted from the dictionary.

[crmoore]

I literally JUST explained why I mentioned them. "Additionally, the point of mentioning skin tags was to set examples on extreme ends of the spectrum of bodily alteration, to point out what is properly considered 'mutilation.'"

I don't mean to be rude but that was your last chance, and I gave you several. Apologies in advance but I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your response.

Despite our differences, though, I know most of your actions are well-intended (no one is perfect, myself included, so that's not meant as an insult) and I genuinely wish you the best of luck.

[Paige90]

Yes - It looks so much better when he gets older

[Nifrayu]

What do you have against body autonomy?

[Paige90]

@Nifrayu I don't

[Nifrayu]

Then why would you force an irreversible elective body modification on your own child?

[Paige90]

@Nifrayu Because it looks better and it's healthier

[Nifrayu]

That's your opinion. You're son might disagree. His body his choice.

[Paige90]

@Nifrayu No it's a medical fact

[Paige90]

@Nifrayu Obviously yours isn't circuncised

[Nifrayu]

Unfortunately I am. It's the main reason a wedge was drove between my parents and me. Don't make the same mistake they made. Respect his right to choose. Males have the same right to intact genitals as females and deserve the same respect.

[Anonymous]

My parents had me circumcised as a baby people argue it causes the baby a lot of pain but you don’t even remember being a baby so that doesn’t really bother me and women seem to prefer guys who are circumcised so I’d probably have my son circumcised as well

[ChicoFromThe305]

Why is circumcision such a big topic on gag all of a sudden, this is like the with post I see on this

[ChicoFromThe305]

Eight post*

[jjj101010]

Probably because it’s a barbaric act that is still widely practiced in some countries

[strateguy632]

only 4 this week but frequent.

[ThebestIndian]

Nope. I wouldn’t do it to him. If he wants it to be cut, he can go ahead when he is able to take a decision for himself. I can support him

[AviatorTom]

My two sons were circumcised shortly after they were born.

[Quidthonian]

I would when he is a teenager. I would give him both sides of the argument, and get him to make a choice.

[Anonymous]

No, cause why the fuck would I? Foreskin exists for a reason, makes no sense to cut it off.

[Cheerfull009]

All Muslim males are circumcised, it is must for Muslims

[Nifrayu]

That's nonsense. There are Muslims that oppose forced genital mutilation. Suggesting that all Muslims partake in a blatant human right violation is antisemitic.

[Cheerfull009]

@Nifrayu, I have mentioned, that males not females, if a real Muslim, then it is must, this is not human rights violations, Muslim are 2nd in the world, after the Christianity, but who the hell you are to criticise Muslims for this, mind your own fuken religion

[Nifrayu]

Forced genital mutilation is in fact a human right violation. It is a clear violation of our basic human right to bodily integrity as it caused us permanent bodily harm. Stop saying antisemitic things about Muslims.

[Cheerfull009]

@Nifrayu, this is in the religion, it is not forced, every Muslim do it happily. As for Human Rights, you are not only in the world, who know Human Rights, everybody knows including Muslims, so stop such logics, mind your own business, leave others on their will

[Nifrayu]

It may not have been forced on you, but it was forced on me, my brother and countless others. I am well within my business to speak out against the way we were violated.

[katiesmuff]

Have three and all three are snipped!

[bolverk]

Would you also insist on any of your female children having to undergo female genital mutilation (FMG)? It amounts to the same thing!

[katiesmuff]

@bolverk No it absolutely does NOT and my daughter who is now 18 has a very healthy and un-scathed lady parts.

[bolverk]

So you believe in a double standard, for FMG is genital mutilation, just the same as circumcision, neither NEED to be done, but you've inflicted it on your sons but not your daughter!

[katiesmuff]

@bolverk Call it anything you want, but in the end it was my choice along with my husband to have the boys snipped and we were present when it was done. It wasn't all that traumatic for any of them and they each have good healthy penises that stay much cleaner and I've been with men both circumcised and uncircumcised with neither finding any problem sexually.

[Nifrayu]

Not your body, not your choice to make. What do you have against respecting body autonomy?

[katiesmuff]

@Nifrayu Unfortunately buttfuck for most parts of this world "CHOICE" doesn't happen until you become an adult which is generally accepted as age 18.

[Nifrayu]

I'm an adult and I still can't choose to not be circumcised because the damage is permanent. If you forced an irreversible body modification onto an infant, you are also forcing it on the adult he becomes.

[katiesmuff]

@Nifrayu Quite certain you will survive through life very well as you are. Doesn't affect a damn thing physically or sexually whether your snipped or not. Big difference is less maintenance keeping that weenie healthy and clean when it has been snipped.

[Nifrayu]

If you really believe it doesn't effect any, you wouldn't have bothered. It does effect us. It permanently disfigured our genitals.

[katiesmuff]

@Nifrayu Your a very sorry induvial if you've let something so minor effect you. Most men don't even relate to it and like I said earlier there are good solid reasons for getting the snip.

[Nifrayu]

A blatant human right violation is never minor. Those reasons are not an valid excuse for depriving us of our right to choose.

[aceleon]

i'm muslim so i kind of have too.

[Nifrayu]

That's an antisemitic thing to say. Not all Muslims partake in forced genital mutilation.

[strateguy632]

@Nifrayu i agree.

[aceleon]

@Nifrayu 1- what you say genital mutilation is necessary and good since at least the child is not bound to put extra effort cleaning there and 2- if they are muslims as you say they accept it is a sin and content with it's punishment.

[Nifrayu]

@aceleon I didn't says anything like that.

[aceleon]

@Nifrayu That's an antisemitic thing to say. Not all Muslims partake in forced genital mutilation. these are your words.

[Nifrayu]

@aceleon yes. Those are my words. I didn't say anything about genital mutilation being good or necessary. That's absurd.

[aceleon]

@Nifrayu well i don't want to argue here with you i made my point and that's all i'm gonna say it also you are probably not even religious or so there is no point talking any further.

[Nifrayu]

@aceleon I don't want to argue about this either. It's stressful. But if you are going to say antisemitic things and defend a human right violation that I am a victim of, then I will argue with you until I am blue in the face.

[aceleon]

@Nifrayu well i might agree with your parents circumcisizing you without even knowing if you will be religious or atheistic. they should have let you do that dicission.

[Nifrayu]

That's my entire point. Nobody should ever be forced to be circumcised. It should be a personal choice.

[elizamichale1]

I hav had it done for my sons

[Nifrayu]

Did they consent to it?

[elizamichale1]

@Nifrayu they were only about 8 months when i had it done honey...
N i hav been a urology nurse n hav quite a lot of info n knowledge on this honey both medically n practically as i hav been in this business for quite a few years

[Nifrayu]

Then you didn't do it "for" them. You did it TO them. Forced genital mutilation is a blatant human right violation. We did not consent.

[elizamichale1]

@Nifrayu come on this is not tht... u know it too

[Nifrayu]

Forced genital mutilation is an ongoing wide spread human right violation. It needs all the awareness it can get to end it. Too many of us have suffered from this to stay silent about it. So I will not be silent.

[elizamichale1]

@Nifrayu well sure.. each to their own opinion honey..

[Nifrayu]

If only you had felt that why before permanently carving your opinion into you children's genitals.

[elizamichale1]

@Nifrayu i did what was best for them

[Nifrayu]

By violating their basic human right to bodily integrity? Do you hear yourself?

[elizamichale1]

@Nifrayu oh come onn

[Nifrayu]

What do you mean "oh come on?" What exactly do you have against body autonomy?
Males have a same right to intact genitals as females and deserve the same respect. We did not consent.

[Unit1]

What happened to my body my choice?

[exitseven]

No, I had the doctor do it.

[jahaims]

Genital mutilation is wrong

[JohnK123]

Haha why?

I prob would bc I am

[Sunnybeach123]

Yes. Cleaner.

[Nifrayu]

Even if that is true, that's a lousy excuse for taking away someone's right to choose.

[Byuser]

Yes...

[QuietRunner]

good, I agree