My parents were Catholic and Sicilian. I was circumcised as an infant and I’m happy with it. I might not opt to do it as an adult just because of pain and discomfort. Vile? Criminal? What’s that about?
Well it’s not criminal as no laws are broken, obviously, but it is vile in a sense. Just think about it. There is NO good biological or pragmatic reason to cut off the foreskin off the penis, and every reason in the world to keep it. Evolution has a very important role for the foreskin: it serves as protection for the very sensitive tip of the penis. When you remove the foreskin and the tip of the penis is constantly exposed over time, due to rubbing against clothes and so on, it becomes increasingly desensitized. As a result uncircumcised men experience more pleasure when they have sex.
As for the “cleanliness” line of thinking, it makes no sense, especially in today’s world. Anybody who is going to be filthy uncircumcised is also going to be filthy circumcised. All it means is that they’re not taking care of their hygiene. Cleanliness has nothing to do with whether or not one has a flap of skin covering his penis and everything to do with one’s hygienic practices.
So basically, it’s much the same reason why infants get circumcised in the US: tradition AND perceived medical advantage.
My parents were Catholic and Sicilian. I was circumcised as an infant and I’m happy with it. I might not opt to do it as an adult just because of pain and discomfort. Vile? Criminal? What’s that about?
It is criminal to chop off other people’s body parts without their explicit consent, or that pressing medical considerations necessitates the amputation.
We don’t need our earlobes, either.
So, what would you think about a sect that snipped off the earlobes of infants?
So are you lobbying your congressman for an anti-circumcision law?
Since I don’t have a congressman, no.
Once you show a little bit of intelligence and moral fibre, and understand that it is criminal to chop off body parts of other human beings without their consent (excepting pressing medical considerations), this might go somewhere.
So, what would you think about a sect that snipped off the earlobes of infants?
I dunno, arildno, it wouldn’t be a very nice thing for parents to do to their children—I wonder what reason they would come up with to rationalize or justify earlobectomies—but the image of a bunch of lobeless people walking around cracked me up!
As far as circumcision is concerned, from a purely aesthetic point of view, a flacid circumcised penis more attractive than a flacid uncircumcised penis…but it is kind of a shame that the circumcised penis loses sensitivity over time.
I wonder if there’s a correlation between ED and circumcision.
So, what would you think about a sect that snipped off the earlobes of infants?
I dunno, arildno, it wouldn’t be a very nice thing for parents to do to their children—I wonder what reason they would come up with to rationalize or justify earlobectomies—.
That’s easy: “The weight of sin makes our ears sag down”.
Once you show a little bit of intelligence and moral fibre, and understand that it is criminal to chop off body parts of other human beings without their consent (excepting pressing medical considerations), this might go somewhere.
I don’t necessarily agree. As Mo1 stated, it isn’t against the law so it isn’t a criminal act. However, you can disagree with it on moral grounds if you like. It’s not a major social issue for me. I have no regrets, nor a vested interest. I had a daughter, but I did have to get the charge for a circumcision taken off the hospital bill. Talk about ripoffs.
Once you show a little bit of intelligence and moral fibre, and understand that it is criminal to chop off body parts of other human beings without their consent (excepting pressing medical considerations), this might go somewhere.
I don’t necessarily agree. As Mo1 stated, it isn’t against the law so it isn’t a criminal act.
But chopping off earlobes is.
Chopping off fingers is.
The application of the law is simply inconsistent, out of “respect” for religionists.
I believe that the original topic, as the name of the thread would suggest, was Sam’s understanding of Islam in Bosnia. I believe it’s unreliable. That, by the way, kinda makes me question some of the other things that Sam says as well. In contrast to that, Christopher Hitchens’ spot-on description of Bosnia makes me give him more credence in some of the other things he says, for example some of his positions on Iraq.
