In this one point Karl Marx was right
...so not only religion but all other absolute ideologies........
-
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.
By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.
Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!
You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum. -
Hello Guest,
Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.
Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
- General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
- Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
- Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
- Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.
Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"
We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
The GayHeaven Team.
circumcision: Violation of Human Rights?
- Thread starter Blacky94
- Start date
In this one point Karl Marx was right
...so not only religion but all other absolute ideologies........
Well spoken!^^
gb2000ie
Super Vip
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 4,522
- Reaction score
- 419
- Points
- 0
It's interesting how the vast majority of the western world can agree to be outraged by female cir
cision, but that the same level of consensus is not reach about male circision.
I guess the fact that in the female case it is taken to greater extremes definitely has something to do with that. There is a horrific streak of misogyny running through female circision that is just not there in the male equivalent. The point is to remove a woman's ability to enjoy sex, and to just turn her into a living sex doll and baby making machine for her husband later in life.
However, I think the core issue is the same, is it OK for parents to mutilate their kids genitalia for no sound medical reason?
Do parents own children, or are they just their guardians? I think it's clear that in western cultures we see them as guardians. Social workers step in to save kids from mental, physical, and sexual abuse all the time. You have a right to raise your kids, but not to harm them.
If you accept the logic that parents are guardians not owners, then it's hard to see how a secular court could come to any judgement other than the one the German court came to. The only way to get a different outcome is to assign some sort of special status to religion, and that is a very dangerous path to go down. If you religion says you should stone to death those that work on the sabbath day, should you be allowed do that? Clearly, we say now, because the rights of the people you would be killing out-weight the rights of the believer to their beliefs. So again, when it comes to harming your kids, surely your religious rights end where your child's rights to their body begins?
The only argument I can find in favour of the practice is "tradition", and that's a really shitty argument for doing anything as far as I'm concerned. There are all sorts of things we used to do that we've stopped doing now because our knowledge of how the world works has grown. I think it's about time we stopped accepting the mutilation of kids genitals simply because that's what has been done in the past.
B.
cision, but that the same level of consensus is not reach about male circision.I guess the fact that in the female case it is taken to greater extremes definitely has something to do with that. There is a horrific streak of misogyny running through female cir
cision that is just not there in the male equivalent. The point is to remove a woman's ability to enjoy sex, and to just turn her into a living sex doll and baby making machine for her husband later in life.However, I think the core issue is the same, is it OK for parents to mutilate their kids genitalia for no sound medical reason?
Do parents own children, or are they just their guardians? I think it's clear that in western cultures we see them as guardians. Social workers step in to save kids from mental, physical, and sexual abuse all the time. You have a right to raise your kids, but not to harm them.
If you accept the logic that parents are guardians not owners, then it's hard to see how a secular court could come to any judgement other than the one the German court came to. The only way to get a different outcome is to assign some sort of special status to religion, and that is a very dangerous path to go down. If you religion says you should stone to death those that work on the sabbath day, should you be allowed do that? Clearly, we say now, because the rights of the people you would be killing out-weight the rights of the believer to their beliefs. So again, when it comes to harming your kids, surely your religious rights end where your child's rights to their body begins?
The only argument I can find in favour of the practice is "tradition", and that's a really shitty argument for doing anything as far as I'm concerned. There are all sorts of things we used to do that we've stopped doing now because our knowledge of how the world works has grown. I think it's about time we stopped accepting the mutilation of kids genitals simply because that's what has been done in the past.
B.
I was born in the 50s in America. Almost everyone was cirsized. I don't think it was primarily religious. I think it had more to do with the 20th century reaction to 19th century urbanization. That mass urbanization was stinky, smelly, unhealthy. The response was SANITARY in all things.
I doubt my parents were even asked. It was just assumed. All the boys were cut, and I grew up with that. I've never felt mutilated or violated at all. I like my cut cock. I think it looks great, feels great, works great. And a cut cock is very much a turn on to me.
The world is changing. If I had a son now, I would leave his little dick alone. But I hope we can have some kindness for our parents. They did what was done, and it's no tragedy. And I hope we can have some kindness for religious minorities. They may be wrong, but they are not demons.
sized. I don't think it was primarily religious. I think it had more to do with the 20th century reaction to 19th century urbanization. That mass urbanization was stinky, smelly, unhealthy. The response was SANITARY in all things.I doubt my parents were even asked. It was just assumed. All the boys were cut, and I grew up with that. I've never felt mutilated or violated at all. I like my cut cock. I think it looks great, feels great, works great. And a cut cock is very much a turn on to me.
The world is changing. If I had a son now, I would leave his little dick alone. But I hope we can have some kindness for our parents. They did what was done, and it's no tragedy. And I hope we can have some kindness for religious minorities. They may be wrong, but they are not demons.
bigsal
Super Vip
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 5,850
- Reaction score
- 43
- Points
- 0
I was born in the 50s in America. Almost everyone was cir
I doubt my parents were even asked. It was just assumed. All the boys were cut, and I grew up with that. I've never felt mutilated or violated at all. I like my cut cock. I think it looks great, feels great, works great. And a cut cock is very much a turn on to me.
The world is changing. If I had a son now, I would leave his little dick alone. But I hope we can have some kindness for our parents. They did what was done, and it's no tragedy. And I hope we can have some kindness for religious minorities. They may be wrong, but they are not demons.
Is correct what you say and the speech did not bat an eyelid.
But as you said, let's talk about the 50's. 60 years ago. Since then it seems to me much changed the world, including America.
You have not had any problems and you're happy that way. But you can not speak for everyone.
But the central theme is the right of people to decide. this point is that we must not lose sight of.
If my son when will adult decides to be cir
cised or to approach any religion, is ok, but it is a decision that should take only him.There really is no justifiable reason for circision, except in the most extreme cirstances.
1] Hygiene reasons are very flimsy at best given all one needs is access to soap and running water (also, it would be an admission that one never bathes, which is not really a successful argument).
2]The "it prevents HIV" argument is an argument that I quite detest because it seems to suggest that one could have unprotected sex and be immune somehow. The best prevention to any sexually transmitted disease is, of course, condoms.
3]Phimosis these days can actually be cured by topical steroid creams, circision is not necessary.
4] "It looks better" is very subjective and should not ever be a reason to permanently remove an important body part of a child. If I believed people looked better without earlobes, it would be considered abuse if I were to hack them off my child.
5] The foreskin is not a "pointless" organ, it's an important one as it protects the glans, makes them more sensitive. We don't remove the female clitoral hood, do we?
Having said that, I don't judge people. In fact, I have a crush on a guy right now who is cut (though he wishes he wasn't).
But circision should not be forced upon a child, religious reasons or not.
cision, except in the most extreme cirstances. 1] Hygiene reasons are very flimsy at best given all one needs is access to soap and running water (also, it would be an admission that one never bathes, which is not really a successful argument).
2]The "it prevents HIV" argument is an argument that I quite detest because it seems to suggest that one could have unprotected sex and be immune somehow. The best prevention to any sexually transmitted disease is, of course, condoms.
3]Phimosis these days can actually be cured by topical steroid creams, cir
cision is not necessary. 4] "It looks better" is very subjective and should not ever be a reason to permanently remove an important body part of a child. If I believed people looked better without earlobes, it would be considered abuse if I were to hack them off my child.
5] The foreskin is not a "pointless" organ, it's an important one as it protects the glans, makes them more sensitive. We don't remove the female clitoral hood, do we?
Having said that, I don't judge people. In fact, I have a crush on a guy right now who is cut (though he wishes he wasn't).
But circision should not be forced upon a child, religious reasons or not.It was the 'fashion' in part of the British Empire (white) and US - it had nothing to do with religion around 1900. You cannot say it was religious from a Christian point of view as that was dismissed by the early church to increase its numbers from the non Jewish population.
jeansGuyOZ
Smartarse from Down Under
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,079
- Reaction score
- 92
- Points
- 0
Polite and objective - as long as they agree with your own views?
I take offence at your suggestion that there is no thought on my part, and your implication that I can't be a "decent person" because I don't continually obsess over the cut vs uncut thing. I do think, long and hard, about lots of issues. I have posted my views on the cir
cision debate elsewhere on this forum, as well as on several other sites. As you rightly observe, it creates heated arguments. You've just demonstrated why I am over discussing this issue.
Last edited:
trencherman
Junior Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,035
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 0
As Voltaire said, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
cir
Cir
cision doesn't really improve anything and that a cut penis looks better is your opinion not a fact.http://nullrefer.com/?http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
This issue has been in the USA news recently.
Next week the American Pediatric Association (baby doctors) will update the guidelines.
This is a big deal. In 1999, the guidelines stated that circision was cosmetic, and not necessary. Some insurers stopped paying for it, and many baby doctors steered parents away from it.
The press seems to hint that they are rethinking the issue. We shall see.
Next week the American Pediatric Association (baby doctors) will update the guidelines.
This is a big deal. In 1999, the guidelines stated that cir
cision was cosmetic, and not necessary. Some insurers stopped paying for it, and many baby doctors steered parents away from it.The press seems to hint that they are rethinking the issue. We shall see.
My friend who is circised is really passionate about this subject. I think he'd like me to be more of an advocate against circision. The irony is that my whole family is uncircised, and we generally do not think about this issue. Once the baby comes out, it goes right to the mother, no questions asked. We are Caribbean so that may be why.
cised is really passionate about this subject. I think he'd like me to be more of an advocate against circision. The irony is that my whole family is uncircised, and we generally do not think about this issue. Once the baby comes out, it goes right to the mother, no questions asked. We are Caribbean so that may be why.
Today the American Pediatric Society released their new guidelines, last revised in 1999. At that time, they deemed circision to be cosmetic.
Today's revision stepped back from that somewhat. The three main points:
- the medical benefits outweigh the risks.
- the benefits are not enough for the procedure to be routine.
- insurance companys should pay for the procedure when it is performed.
cision to be cosmetic.Today's revision stepped back from that somewhat. The three main points:
- the medical benefits outweigh the risks.
- the benefits are not enough for the procedure to be routine.
- insurance companys should pay for the procedure when it is performed.
indooroopilly
New member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2009
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Today the American Pediatric Society released their new guidelines, last revised in 1999. At that time, they deemed cir
Today's revision stepped back from that somewhat. The three main points:
- the medical benefits outweigh the risks.
- the benefits are not enough for the procedure to be routine.
- insurance companys should pay for the procedure when it is performed.
could not agree with you more
gb2000ie
Super Vip
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 4,522
- Reaction score
- 419
- Points
- 0
cir
How it looks is purely objective, but stating that it has health benefits is a statement of fact. Can you back that up with any credible sources? My understanding is that it's a very controversial question with people desperately scrambling to find at least some teeny tiny benefit but not coming up with much of any consequence.
B.
gb2000ie
Super Vip
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 4,522
- Reaction score
- 419
- Points
- 0
Today the American Pediatric Society released their new guidelines, last revised in 1999. At that time, they deemed cir
Today's revision stepped back from that somewhat. The three main points:
- the medical benefits outweigh the risks.
- the benefits are not enough for the procedure to be routine.
- insurance companys should pay for the procedure when it is performed.
Sounds like they would like to have their cake and eat it too. Just fudge the whole thing up enough that no one can blame them for insurance policy, and yet still not recommend it be done.
B.
Circision - a clear head for business?
OK, let's get a few basic things right about circision. I am Jewish and, of course circised. I am Gay and completely a-religion. I do not want to hurt anyone who is religious, no matter what the faith, but when you consider how many people have been killed over the decades, centuries and millennia in the name of religion, how can people see good in it? Some religions even demand that Gays be executed and many religious Jews are not exactly Gay friendly.
OK, that said, we all know that a huge argument is brewing on this issue. I was born in South Africa and when I went to school, I am an "oldie", the majority of non- Jewish boys were circised. This was done as it was deemed healthy, a fact which is being by many doctors all over the world who are not Jewish or Muslim. Many people do not know that many of the Black tribes in Africa traditionally circise boys. Now, here comes the painful part. They do it at the age of thirteen! OUCH! OMG!
A friend of mine who was not Jewish and straight also told me this story. He was having sex with a girl and for some reason, he tore his foreskin. He was given the choice - cut it off or stitch up the torn part. He opted for the cut it off option. He said that if it was to happen again, he could not go through the pain again.
So, when little boys are circised at the age of just a few days it is a hell of a lot less painful then when they grow up. If one wants to argue about using a local anesthetic, well that is a good point and many, myself included, would support it. As for being "cut" at an older age, just think of what you are going to go through durin the healing process and what you cannot do!
The next point in favor is that again many doctors say circision does prevent HIV/AIDS and maybe us in the Gay community should think about this as we have been vilified for decades the we caused AIDS to spread! Also, I am sure that everyone will agree that nothing is more import that one's health!
Recently I read that this guy, who is Jewish, said that an "uncut" penis is more sensitive than a cut one and thus sex and masturbation is more pleasurable. My question is how does he know? Does he have a Dickometer, a P-Reader or a Cock-a-Matic?
The last point that I would like to make is that during World War II Jews and Homosexuals were sent Concentration Camps and we all know the rest. The test for being a Jew was by making him expose his penis! My point is that I find it strange that the Court Ruling is in Germany. The case was because a little Muslim boy had complications after circision. Any surgery can result in in complications. Neil Armstrong died from complications after a heart by pass. So do we stop all surgery and let people die from burst appendixes or cancer? So was the count ruling basic on fact or on Antisemitism and Islamaphobia?
So, who should choose whether to circise or not? I think the parents of the little baby boy because the the pain afterwards would be huge.
:big hug: Just be healthy and safe!
PS Maybe good topics to bring up next is "Barebacking in Porn", which California is trying to ban, and "Smoking in Porn".
cision - a clear head for business?OK, let's get a few basic things right about cir
cision. I am Jewish and, of course circised. I am Gay and completely a-religion. I do not want to hurt anyone who is religious, no matter what the faith, but when you consider how many people have been killed over the decades, centuries and millennia in the name of religion, how can people see good in it? Some religions even demand that Gays be executed and many religious Jews are not exactly Gay friendly.OK, that said, we all know that a huge argument is brewing on this issue. I was born in South Africa and when I went to school, I am an "oldie", the majority of non- Jewish boys were cir
cised. This was done as it was deemed healthy, a fact which is being by many doctors all over the world who are not Jewish or Muslim. Many people do not know that many of the Black tribes in Africa traditionally circise boys. Now, here comes the painful part. They do it at the age of thirteen! OUCH! OMG!A friend of mine who was not Jewish and straight also told me this story. He was having sex with a girl and for some reason, he tore his foreskin. He was given the choice - cut it off or stitch up the torn part. He opted for the cut it off option. He said that if it was to happen again, he could not go through the pain again.
So, when little boys are cir
cised at the age of just a few days it is a hell of a lot less painful then when they grow up. If one wants to argue about using a local anesthetic, well that is a good point and many, myself included, would support it. As for being "cut" at an older age, just think of what you are going to go through durin the healing process and what you cannot do!The next point in favor is that again many doctors say cir
cision does prevent HIV/AIDS and maybe us in the Gay community should think about this as we have been vilified for decades the we caused AIDS to spread! Also, I am sure that everyone will agree that nothing is more import that one's health!Recently I read that this guy, who is Jewish, said that an "uncut" penis is more sensitive than a cut one and thus sex and masturbation is more pleasurable. My question is how does he know? Does he have a Dickometer, a P-Reader or a Cock-a-Matic?
The last point that I would like to make is that during World War II Jews and Homosexuals were sent Concentration Camps and we all know the rest. The test for being a Jew was by making him expose his penis! My point is that I find it strange that the Court Ruling is in Germany. The case was because a little Muslim boy had complications after cir
cision. Any surgery can result in in complications. Neil Armstrong died from complications after a heart by pass. So do we stop all surgery and let people die from burst appendixes or cancer? So was the count ruling basic on fact or on Antisemitism and Islamaphobia?So, who should choose whether to cir
cise or not? I think the parents of the little baby boy because the the pain afterwards would be huge.:big hug: Just be healthy and safe!
PS Maybe good topics to bring up next is "Barebacking in Porn", which California is trying to ban, and "Smoking in Porn".
The next point in favor is that again many doctors say cir
To be honest it is not really proven that cir
cision lowers the risk of catching HIV. And if you have bareback sex with someone who has HIV then you will catch HIV. doesn't matter if you are cut or not. So just use a condom then you are save!And in most cases an uncut penis is more sensitive. the Foreskin itself is very sensitive (otherwise it wouldn't hurt so much when it is cut off) and the ehm...Dickhead... is also more sensitive because the Foreskin protects it from friction. When the foreskin is removed the skin the becomes rougher and the fleelings can be dumped down a bit. (This does not affect orgasms as far as i know)
And of course every kind of surgery has risk, but the difference is that cir
cision is in most cases unnecessary (I do not consider Religion to be reason to cut off a fully functional part of the body) but heart surgerys are in most cases necessary so this example is really bad.
