|
|
|
|
Hi folks!
I came across this correspondence on the net and thought it might interest some of you out there. - Nigel
"Hi everyone,
I've been on this other group called "circfiction" and another about adult circumcision. I'm an uncut guy who is fascinated by cut cocks. I especially love that dark scar around the shaft. I know this is an uncut group but are there any uncut guys out there that harbour the same feelings? Also, I've given serious thought to getting cut but I'm either too much of a coward or I like my foreskin too much - I'm not sure which.
Richard"
"Hi Richard,
PLEASE DON'T GET CUT. I was cut at age 45 and both me and my late lover hated it the minute it was done. I wanted to look like all the other guys in the locker room. If you look around in a gym locker room you will notice a LOT more uncut guys than when I was a younger man. Now I notice there are quite a few uncut guys at the gym and I love it.
The first six months of being cut is great. So much sensitivity… almost like when I was a teenager and had to hide my erections in my pants as they were very frequent. When I attended grammar school I swear I was the ONLY kid who was uncut in the whole school. I NEVER saw a guy who wasn't. When I got to high school and had to strip for gym class the first day I was in shock all day. I thought I was a freak because I did not ever run across any man who wasn't cut. My dad was cut and my older brothers were as well. My Mum refused to have me cut. She had to hold her other two baby boys while they cut them and she was not going to put her last baby boy (me) through that.
Thanks to a lot of good education now on the east coast and the 13 western states it is down to about 30% or less. If the insurance companies would quit paying for it like they did in the British Isles years ago there would be VERY few baby boys being cut. There are places in this country where it is against the law to cut baby girls. Cut one and you would go to jail. Some places in the US it is now illegal to crop the tails and ears of puppies. Don't you think our baby boys deserve as much so that they can keep all the erogenous tissue that nature meant for them to have on their penises?
For the first six months or so, I was so fucking horny all the time from my poor cock head being rubbed by my clothing all day. That was over with in short order as the callous on the head of my cock got thicker. A lot of cut men don't have a clue that they have been robbed of a lot of the erogenous tissue and now have a callous to keep the sensitivity. I keep saying sensitivity when in fact it isn't that at all. It is the loss of whole range of feeling that were thrown out in the trash with my foreskin.
Several years ago I ran across a web site that was full of info for non surgically restoring foreskins. Man, I couldn't get started fast enough. I hated being cut. It took me 10 months of diligently keeping my remnant of a foreskin under tension. I grew to cover to the tip of my glans. I have regained about 70% of the feelings that I lost. Men who were cut as babies will never get it back even if they restore. It has to do with the brain already being hard wired for the feelings when one is cut as an adult.
I belong to an organization to aid men who are interested in getting their foreskins back and a lot of the feelings that go with it. It it called NORM of So. Cal. I have personally assisted 56 men to get started doing this and most have been successful. We have meetings on the 3rd Sunday of every month, you are welcome to come and hear some of the terrible things men have had done to them while being circumcised.
I hope this does some good in dissuading you to get your foreskin cut off. Think of it this way. EVERY male mammal on this planet has a foreskin… EVERY ONE. Do you think that is a mistake made my nature so some crazy people can cut their baby boys foreskins off and by the way have a party at the same time. People who practise this should be locked up where they can't do any more harm.
Here are a few pix of my restoration progress, not a complete story but enough so that you can see what can be done.
hugs
George"
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It IS pretty gruesome that something that is considered an unspeakable evil regarding girls (and really, it is), is actually considered normal, and/or positive when performed on men. Granted, the side-effects are much less severe, but the general principle is really no less; it IS genital mutilation. Torture in fact, since it generally seems to be done without anaesthetics on babies.
In Sweden there is now a ban on this procedure when done for non-medical reasons, although of course they had to stick in an exception to allow it for religious reasons, which sort of ruins the whole thing. There should just be an outright ban, and parents and doctors who have the procedure done anyway should be jailed.
>
-L
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Those of you who know me well will know I am active in campaigning against male gential mutilation. Thsi does not mean I object to a perosn choosing to modify their own body having been given full information about pros and cons with full informed consent. It means I am wholly against routine male genital mutilation of neonatals for no reason apart from profit.
There are two areas of profit here. One is for the surgeon who makes a profit from the procedure. The other is the place where the foresins go. "Anti Ageing face Creams". Yes, you got it. Vain women use creams containing newborn (modified) foreskin tissue.
If you can bear it, look here to see what male genital mutilation means:
http://iomfats.org/resources/restoring/media/circumcision.asf
and
http://iomfats.org/resources/restoring/media/circvid.ram (needs real Player)
For those without foreskin you may want to look here http://iomfats.org/resources/health/penis/circumcision/foreskinanimation.html to see how one works
In the UK it is unusual to see anyone under 30 with a circumcised penis, unless for religious reasons. Over 30 it is about 50/50. In Europe circumcision is so rare as to be discounted except for religious reasons.
What you may not realise is that judaism did not originally remove the entire foreskin, but used to "snip the tip". Full mutilation came into vogue to punish and prevent masturbation in Victorian times.
http://www.cirp.org has much information here
[Updated on: Wed, 28 April 2004 06:29]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
I asked my mama why I was cut. She said that the doctor who delivered me said that all babies needed it to be clean. She didn't even consider not. She got real embarrassed when I asked her. I asked her if it hurt me...she said she didn't know...she wasn't there. That conversation didn't go well.
Excuse me!! If being cut punishes and prevents masturbation, somebody forgot to tell me.
Note to self: Bad me!! Stop that immediately!! 
{{{hugs}}}
smith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Your mama did what every new mother does. She took professional advice and did what she believed to be best for her child.
The problem is that the advice was in error.
What the doctor did was cut a ring around your little penis and then hid it inthe same diaper as your baby poop. An interesting concept in hygiene.
Of course people look at smegma, the white deposit found under a foreskin, and say "this is removable so it must be dirty, not realising that it is actually antibacterial and creates an environment where infection will not thrive.
Those unused to seeing an intact penis also look at one and find it odd because it has infinite variations of foreskin length and shape.
The Victorian moralists used to find little boys playing with themsleves and punish them by amputating the foreskin without anaesthetic. OWWW!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your mama, and many millions of others just like her throughout North America, were simply following the dictates of society as they prevailed at the time.
In Canada, for well over a century (beginning in the early 1870's), and dictated as a matter of "Public Policy", all males born through either a clinic or hospital environment were routinely circumcised.
This contravened prevailing Religious tenets for a number of faiths; practising Roman Catholics for example. Protestants for some reason seemed to not have any opinion at all on the subject. This requirement was enacted through sundry Public Health provisions on a Province by Province basis, being subject to arbitration should a parent object on either moral or theological grounds.
The practice was instituted here from well-intended purposes - namely hygiene - purposes which had suitable foundation given the times, but granted the passage of time, and change in circumstances throughout our society, no-longer needed to be generally adopted and applied. In 1870's Canada, especially Frontier Canada "soap and water" was extremely expensive, and not widely available; whereas 1980's Canada, water was "free" to all, and soap minimal in cost.
The only widespread exemption from this practice were for "home-births", which during the 1870's accounted for probably more than 70% of all new-borns, and by 1970 accounted less than 2 or 3%.
The statutory requirement for male circumcision was abandoned nation-wide in 1985, although not for any of the typical reasons given by leading authorities on the subject World-wide, but from a more typically Canadian rationale, cost, and having it's origins more in our nation's traditional Scots Presbyterian roots I suspect than anything else, it having been determined that our Health care system could save approximately 100 Millions a year by abandoning the practice. As a consequence, whilst circumcisions do occur throughout Canada to this day (all costs associated with the practice are now born solely by the parents requesting it, rather than by the Government), they are declining at a rapid rate, and now typically number somewhere in the range of 20% of all male births, from a high in 1984 of 97%.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
"... comme recherché qu'un délice callipygian"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Timmy,
The details you provided concerning Judaism are very misleading. First the video: I have attended countless circumcision ceremonies (for newborns) and I have NEVER seen anything like what was depicted in that video. I will check out the web to see if I can find a picture or a video of a Jewish ritual circumcision.
Secondly, the "facts" that you provided concerning Jewish circumcision are absolutely incorrect. Jewish ritual circumcision removes the whole of the foreskin and has done so for millenia. There are written manuals going back hundreds of years that describe the same operation as is performed today. No changes were made in the ceremony in Victorian times and circumcision has no effect whatsoever on one's ability (or desire) to masturbate.
Every single ritual circumciser that I have seen has done a fast, clean job and the operation was completed within about 20 seconds. In much more than half the cases the baby didn't even cry, and those that did stopped crying moments later.
The foreskin, once removed, must be destroyed, and certainly may not be used for any purpose whatsoever.
What you wrote may well be correct, for all I know, about adult surgical circumcision, but it is completely incorrect with regards to Jewish ritual circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Lenny wrote:
>In Sweden there is now a ban on this procedure when done for non-medical reasons, although of course they had to stick in an exception to allow it for religious reasons, which sort of ruins the whole thing. There should just be an outright ban, and parents and doctors who have the procedure done anyway should be jailed.<
Well, I hope that you never become PM of Sweden! Would you also put people in jail for shaving their beard, cutting their toe-nails, trimming their finger-nails, cutting their hair? And don't tell me about minors: would you have parents leave their children's hair and nails untended until they can make a decision for themselves?
I live in a country where 97% of the male population is circumcised - people from three different religions. Young newcomers who have not been circumcised have the operation done voluntarily so as not to be "different from everyone else". There is no law in this country requiring or forbidding circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Steve wrote:
>
> Well, I hope that you never become PM of Sweden! Would you also put people in jail for shaving their beard, cutting their toe-nails, trimming their finger-nails, cutting their hair? And don't tell me about minors: would you have parents leave their children's hair and nails untended until they can make a decision for themselves?
>
These are not equivalent. Hair and nails are not living tissue, have no blood supply and no nerves. The foreskin is a mucous membrane designed to protect the glans penis, also a mucous membrane, from harm. Millennia of mutilation does not make gential mutilation a good practice,let alone a correct practice.
You are, I assume, opposed to female circumcision? Also a practice which has been carried out by people for millennia?
The fact that your nation is full of people with keratinised penises is a strange historical accident. As for the muslims, they wait until the child is old enough to really care and then do the whole thing in public.
These rites of manhood are very strange. They are throwbacks to gruesome times when tribal markings were required to identify people. If that is a "covenant with god", then "some god!"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have to ask you if the same is true for foreskins. 
Now, if a person is crazy enough to get himself mutilated just to fit in in a group, then he can do so when he's reached adulthood, and I won't have any problems with that. However, I sincerely believe someone who mutilates an underage child - boy OR girl - belongs in jail.
Male circumcision's a barbaric unneccessary habit that needs to be outlawed when performed on minors for non-medical reasons, just as it is when it comes to girls.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Well, I was cut pretty much as a newborn. I'm not sure how common the practice is in Australia nowadays, but from my limited observation it was about 50-50 in my generation, born in 1984 and seemed to be less common in my brother's generation 1990 (he wasn't cut).
I have never been uncut so I can't compare but I think my penis is quite sensitive enough, actually and I rather enjoy direct stimulation of the glans, something I understand wouldn't be as possible were I uncut. How can one measure the difference in sensitivity between one who grows up cut and one who grows up uncut there is no one that does done both? It is quite possible that the brain adapts for us cut kids while growing up to provide sensitivity that people who are cut while adults lack. Or it is possible that subconscious aspects effect a man who is cut as an adult. I'm not sure, maybe studies of the brain activity in uncut and cut men has been measured, but what I do know is that I really don't feel I am lacking anything in my sex life by being circumcised. I have been with uncut guys and they don't seem to reach orgasm any faster nor any more powerfully than cut guys. Maybe I'm just ignorant to what is going on inside them because I really don't know better, but as long as I still have the ability to orgasm I'm not going to think that I've missed out on anything.
As for asthetic value, yes, I prefer cut cocks. Even if they are not cleaner in reality, they feel cleaner, look cleaner and in most cases smell cleaner. Uncut cocks have their own appeal, but in general I do prefer cut guys, maybe again, just because I've grown up that way myself.
If I adopt kids or have kids of my own, will I be getting them cut? Probably not, there is no real need for it, the only real value I see is asthetic (or religious, but I am not of a faith that requires it) but if that is the only value then how moralistic is it to circumcise a newborn? Would you insert piercings into the penis or nipples of a newborn for asthetic value? Would you get a tattoo of a dragon on the back of a newborn for asthetic value?
If society didn't know any better and everyone was uncut then there would be no value to being circumcised anyway, everyone would just expect a penis to be uncircumcised as part of the norm. And I doubt in such a society that anyone would be circumcised for any other reason than medical because they would feel the pressure to 'fit in' with the circumcised boys. I'm not against circumcision strongly, I'm not angry for being circumcised, but I don't really think it is necessary or worth the money, pain and other losses. If people elect to be circumcised, that is fine; if there is substantial religious motivation, then I guess I can understand that; but otherwise, why bother?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben.... i take side with almost everything you said. I too was circumcised as a new born so i can only give one side of the story. Personally i don't think there is anything wrong with it... no need to send people to jail if they decide to circumcise their child... everything depends on religion and culture. I grew up being cut and i like it that way... to me is a great feeling but again i don't know the other side of the story.
As a child i never had any problems because i was one of the few cut boys in my group of friends. In fact i never gave much thought to it. It until i came to the USA that i learn most Latinos are uncut.. i guess i belong to a special group ;-D However, it never affected me mentally just because i was different. To me you were either cut or uncut and it was normal so i never thought of me as being different.
Mutilation ??? maybe so but they do it when you a baby you are not going to remember the pain when you are older..... and simply the penis gets used to being cut and live a normal pleasurable life just like any other boy who is uncut. I bet if i was uncut... i would love it too and i could have similar feelings as a cut boy. The topic is too controversial and both being cut/uncut has its advantages and disadvantages... it boils down to preference.... how much culture influences an individual also affects the decision..and of course there is the being different factor which i think is a little dumb idea but hey some just want to fit in.
Very interesting topic.... i loved it!
You don't love someone because they are beautiful, they are beautiful because you love them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
I didn't make myself clear. Sorry. What I mean is that it gets very dangerous when governments decide to interfere in what individuals do when what they do has no bearing on anyone else. (For better or worse, children are considered to be an adjunct of their parents until they mature.)
I remember that there was once a suggestion in Britain that the sale of cigarettes should be legally prohibited - because of the harm smoking does to the smoker. A liberal politician pointed out that the good of the individual is not sufficient warranty for society to interfere in what he does. He quoted one of the greatest liberarians that have been in modern times, the philosopher John Stuart Mill. Mill wrote a long essay "On Liberty" (which every freedom-loving person should read every now and then). The gist of the essay is that society has the right to interfere in the actions of the individual ONLY in order to prevent harm to itself: the good of the individual is not sufficient warranty to curtail his freedom of action.
I would not like to live in a country which decides by legislation what I shall or shall not have for breakfast, just because "it's good for me".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I think the key is the consent. Most parents in circumcising nations were ot given sufficient information to give or withold consent. Indeed some who withheld consent had their sons mutilated anyway.
I use the word "mutilation" on purpose because I see an elective procedure performed on a child because the parent wants it as a true mutilation. It's the same as your father choosing that you have a tattoo.
When the child is able to give informed consent it becomes a modification, and is perfectly fine.
In circuncising a child the surgeon removes a very large percentage of the skin of the penis, along with a large number of highly erogenous nerve endings and removes the protection for a verydelicate item the glans. A foreskin is rather like an eyelid in its function. It's job is to protect and moisten sensitive membrane (note thatthis is not skin, but a mucous membrane). It does remove sexual pleasure (I have been both uncut and cut and know this for a fact) and the entire character of the glans changes.
Now, those who "only have what they have" are content with their sexual sensation. Those who know what theyare missing are not. But why would you allow a child tobe mutilated before it can make a decision by itself to keep or lose that sensitivity?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it DOES have bearing on someone else; the child!
The parent does NOT have the right to arbitrarily amputate for example earlobes on their children, which serve even less purpose than the foreskin does. An infant is still a unique individual; the parent is charged with raising the child, but that charge does not extend to deciding which parts of the body - parts that evolution PUT THERE FOR A PURPOSE - should be surgically removed; that is simply PREPOSTROUS!
A person's body is his temple, even a minor person has the right to ALL of his or her body, no matter WHAT the parents' religious faith is. Once you take this away, you cannot give it back! By all reason of logic, an infant HAS no faith, and should therefore not be subject to the parents' religious doctrines either.
And your parallel to smoking is rather fitting. Of course smoking should be banned, if cigarettes were invented today there's no way they'd be legal even if we only knew a tenth of their harmful effects they have on us. Your liberal politician may be right that society may not always be warranted to interfere in peoples' lives when only the INDIVIDUAL is affected, but smoking affects everybody around the smoker, not just himself! The reason smoking isn't banned is of course not that the government doesn't have the right to interfere in people's lives; after all, all sorts of drugs ARE banned and there are many laws that limits our freedom, but it would simply be too impopular a move since so many people smoke.
Besides, just because a "great libertarian"/philosopher says something doesn't mean what he says is right, so don't try to impress me by citing names.
Finally: Steve, comparing genital mutilation on infants who have no way to express their opinion in the matter with governments dictating what you yourself eat for breakfast is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and quite frankly beneath us both. Stick to the subject when you reply, thank you.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The Irish Republic has banned all smoking in public places, because it is bad for people.
Most governments ban narcotics because they are bad for you.
Thalidomide was banned (except in Brazil) because it is bad for the unborn child.
Many sweeteners have been banned as bad for you.
Benzene used to be used to treat wounds. It has been proved to be carcinogenic and banned as bad for you.
Your own faith banned foods that were hard to keep fresh without refrigeration (shellfish, pork etc) because they are bad for you.
So, that line of argument appears to me to be a dead end.
Circumcision is not good for you. It amputates an anatomical part that is designed to be there. I think the swedes are right. Regrettably the religious lobbies insisted on reitual infant genital mutilation there, but the law now means that it must be done by a real surgeon and it is highly discouraged. Go Sweden!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: London, England
Registered: November 2006
Messages: 465
|
|
|
Lenny, your rhetoric leaves me unmoved. The use of pejorative terms (such as mutilation) does move me - in a negative manner. You and I are agreed on so many things in this thread; what divides us is simple: I hold that when a certain medical procedure is the FREELY accepted NORM for a whole society and has been so for aeons there is no justification for any government to interfere. I would agree that if at any time a SIGNIFICANT number of males in that society should complain at what was done to them at birth then there would be a justification for regulating legislation.
I think that our discussions in this thread have become a "debate between two deaf people" in which neither side will become convinced of the claims of the other. Therefore, having made my own point as clearly as I can, I shall not take any further part in this thread - unless something new and enlightening is added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
What is, to a non circumcising religion, a mutilation, is, to a circumcising religion, an essential part of that religion.
The problem comes back to Abraham, I think.
Now I mistrust a God who plays tricks. Like trying to get Abraham to sacrifice his son and then saying "April Fool!", fortunatley just before he killed the boy. And I suspect Abraham was deranged and got this body modification kick and explained it, along with his other neuroses as being "The Word of God". But from Abraham the jews and the Muslims are stuck with cutting off a vital part of a boy;s anatomy.
"It isn't vital, I don't have one!" I hear you cry. And that is the challenege, because we can survive perfectly well without a foresking and breed perfectly well without one. As we can without a leg. But the body is designed to have one, and removal of it is an odd fetish in the extreme.
Except, of course, the anti ageing cream industry adores foreskins because its creams and potions have infant foreskin (doubtless not jewish infant foreskin) in them. And those Human Growth Hormone spam emails you get? Well that is derived from infant foreskins as well.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
http://www.oprah.com/health/beauty/health_beauty_treatments.jhtml Yes I know it;s Oprah, but I have checked the manufacturer out.
Other Treatments
Dr. Wexler also mentioned a new product that boosts collagen production and can rejuvenate skin called TNS Recovery Complex. TNS is comprised from six natural human growth factors found in normal healthy skin. Dr. Wexler told us the factors are engineered from human foreskin!
Related Information:
Dr. Pat Wexler is a cosmetic dermatologist based in New York. Call 212-684-2626.
Visit http://www.thermage.com to learn more about ThermaCool.
Visit http://www.skinmedica.com to learn more about TNS Recovery Complex.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aww, are you going to bow out just as this became interesting? Too bad. Well, I'll reply in any case, not because I feel the need to have the last word for some silly reason, but because I wish to expand my earlier argument. 
'Perjorative terms'? What would you like to call it then? It is a permanent removal of tissue from the genitals. If instead of circumcising the boy he'd been castrated instead in the name of religion, would using the word 'mutilation' still have been a 'perjorative term'? I believe in calling things what they are.
And circumcision isn't exactly a medical procedure either. Medical procedures are used to treat conditions or illnesses; neither of which applies to being in possession of a working foreskin. As for being 'freely accepted', nobody asked the baby before it was subjected to the procedure, which is the whole point. We have a RIGHT to our bodies. ALL of our bodies.
In the name of consistency, I'd like to see you argue as strongly for female circumcision in Africa as you do for male elsewhere; as we know, that is a 'FREELY accepted NORM' too...
While male circumcision have less severe sideeffects, it is the general principle I'm after, that no person has the right to chop off parts of another without express permission from that person. It doesn't matter it's been tradition for 'aeons'; slavery was right too for a long time and that's been outlawed pretty much everywhere now.
"But he that hath the steerage of my course,
direct my sail."
-William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act One, Scene IV
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Circumcision 
Lordy Lordy !! 
Steve, hair, nails etc GROWS OUT AGAIN... 
Steve. 
