Circumcision will be illegal

Post by **Strangler** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:23 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... eb212496_2

San Diego, CA (PRWEB) February 28, 2005 -- Today marks the second attempt by a San Diego based health and human rights organization to protect boys from the practice of circumcision. Although girls in the U.S. have been legally protected from circumcision and other forms of genital cutting since the Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed by Congress in 1996, protection for boys has lagged.

Circumcision is a medically unnecessary surgery to remove the foreskin. Research has shown that the male foreskin contains specialized nerve endings designed to enhance sexual pleasure, and that it protects the sensitivity of the soft erogenous tissue of the penis. Despite such evidence, slightly more than half of all American boys are routinely circumcised for cultural and religious reasons.

That may change soon, however, if MGMbill.org's "Male Genital Mutilation Bill" proposal finds a sponsor. The proposed legislation has drawn responses from a number of legislators, including Rep. Susan Davis (news, bio, voting record), D-CA, a sponsor of several health bills. "(MGMbill.org's) level of commitment to changing current policy is admirable," commented Davis. "(They) have obviously given this issue a great deal of thought. I believe the most important work occurs at the grassroots level and (MGMbill.org's) efforts are helping to reshape existing attitudes towards circumcision."

Human rights activists opposed to male circumcision are generally supportive of the proposed bill. "There is a legal double standard in regard to circumcision that needs to be corrected," said David Wilson, Director of Stop Infant Circumcision Society in Cocoa Beach, Florida. "Enactment of the MGM Bill would ensure that all children are equally protected from medically unnecessary genital modifications, regardless of gender." Wilson has actively protested against male circumcision for years and he frequently travels around the country to participate in public demonstrations.

A mother who decided to have her son circumcised based on the advice of her physician backs the bill as well. "A year has passed since my son's circumcision, and still I feel pangs of guilt every time I bathe him," said Sandra Aldrich of Anchorage, Alaska. "I was supposed to protect him from harm, and instead I was encouraged by everyone I know to participate in taking something from him that can never be given back. I wonder how the stress and pain affected his developing brain as he endured a full 15 minutes of what I can only describe as torture. The first thing I said to my mother after we left the doctor's office (in tears) is that I can't believe it's legal to have this done to a child."

The proposed legislation is also gaining support from men who were circumcised as children. Jeremy Boyle of Indianapolis, Indiana, said that although the MGM Bill is too late to protect him, he wants it to become law so that other men don't have to go through what he did. "I was mutilated as an infant because of circumcision," said Boyle. "I know I'll never get to experience being whole, but I want to help ensure that future generations can have what was stolen from me. Male genital mutilation is a crime that should be treated no differently than female genital mutilation."

The MGM Bill proposal was faxed to each House Representative and U.S. Senator today. A state level bill proposal was also faxed to each member of the legislature in California, the home state of MGMbill.org. Like its federal counterpart, current California law protects only one gender from circumcision.

Matthew Hess of MGMbill.org argues that laws protecting only one gender from genital mutilation are unconstitutional. "Both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law," said Hess. "It is a fact that circumcision damages sexual function in both genders, and yet only one gender is legally protected from it. We don't allow girls to be circumcised anymore. Why are we still letting it be done to boys?"

Post by **Foo** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:06 pm

Problem is that male and female circumcision aren't the same thing. It's the removal of sections of what are different organs. Just because they share a common name, doesn't mean they're equal.

Second... a principly jewish practice being made illegal in America? uhm.

Post by **mjrpes** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:57 pm

Foo wrote:
Second... a principly jewish practice being made illegal in America? uhm.

...and most Christians too. The body has to be pure for the rapture!

Post by **Ryoki** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:00 pm

Indeed, this stands the chance of a snowball in hell.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:20 pm

mjrpes wrote: ...and most Christians too.

Errr... wrong.

Post by **Pext** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:28 pm

i would not want to have my foreskin removed. there's some part at the back where it is connected with the glans that is very sensitive :icon14:

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:35 pm

That's pretty cool that they are at least trying. Something like this shouldn't even be an issue in this day and age however. It should be obvious this ancient tradition is nothing more than bullshit.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:37 pm

It had it's justification back in the day.
But with today's hygiene, it's nothing more than a tradition.
(Unless you don't have proper hygiene, you filthy pig.)

Post by **inphlict** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:39 pm

I don't think parents should decide.

Post by **inphlict** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:43 pm

Think about it, have your dick handled by some fucker and then a peice of skin with nerve endings is removed for no apparent reason. No thanks.

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:46 pm

I've never seen a circumcised pussy or dick... =/ But I know what they do to the dick...not the pussy...time for Google...damn...all I got was porn with fat women...

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:19 pm

SplishSplash wrote:It had it's justification back in the day.
But with today's hygiene, it's nothing more than a tradition.
(Unless you don't have proper hygiene, you filthy pig.)

too bad it was never a hygenic practice... only a hygenic myth.
your penis is cleaner and safer with its natural protector than without it.

------

personally i probably would have done it anyway if my parents hadn't... a cut penis just looks better, its more of a cosmetic surgery than anything else, and should probably be treated as such.

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:39 pm

Dr_Watson wrote: too bad it was never a hygenic practice... only a hygenic myth.
your penis is cleaner and safer with its natural protector than without it.

Circumcision: Mostly Jews and Arabs.
Jews and Arabs: Desert.

You've obviously never had sand under your foreskin.

Seriously: If you don't wash your penis enough, you'll get smegma under your foreskin.
Smegma = icky.
No foreskin = no smegma.

Post by **Grudge** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:46 pm

What's 3 million years of evolution against 3000 years of tradition?

Post by **Transient** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:46 pm

SplishSplash wrote:
mjrpes wrote: ...and most Christians too.
Errr... wrong.

Errr... right.

Post by **bitWISE** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:46 pm

SplishSplash wrote:
Dr_Watson wrote: too bad it was never a hygenic practice... only a hygenic myth.
your penis is cleaner and safer with its natural protector than without it.
Circumcision: Mostly Jews and Arabs.
Jews and Arabs: Desert.

You've obviously never had sand under your foreskin.

Seriously: If you don't wash your penis enough, you'll get smegma under your foreskin.
Smegma = icky.
No foreskin = no smegma.

MANY people in America are circusized at birth either automatically or with parental consent. Shit I'm circumsized and my family didn't even go to church. I was going to ask my mom if she authorized it but I don't care enough about it to talk about my penis with my mom.

Post by **andyman** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:49 pm

bitWISE wrote:
SplishSplash wrote:
Dr_Watson wrote: too bad it was never a hygenic practice... only a hygenic myth.
your penis is cleaner and safer with its natural protector than without it.
Circumcision: Mostly Jews and Arabs.
Jews and Arabs: Desert.

You've obviously never had sand under your foreskin.

Seriously: If you don't wash your penis enough, you'll get smegma under your foreskin.
Smegma = icky.
No foreskin = no smegma.
MANY people in America are circusized at birth either automatically or with parental consent. Shit I'm circumsized and my family didn't even go to church. I was going to ask my mom if she authorized it but I don't care enough about it to talk about my penis with my mom.

yeah its not like you'll get it back anyway

reminds me of Meet the Fockers

Post by **SplishSplash** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:55 pm

bitWISE wrote: MANY people in America are circusized at birth either automatically or with parental consent. Shit I'm circumsized and my family didn't even go to church. I was going to ask my mom if she authorized it but I don't care enough about it to talk about my penis with my mom.

Think TRADITIONALLY. Circumcision wasn't invented in Cleveland, you know?

It was desert folk who invented circumcision.

Post by **bitWISE** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:57 pm

SplishSplash wrote:
bitWISE wrote: MANY people in America are circusized at birth either automatically or with parental consent. Shit I'm circumsized and my family didn't even go to church. I was going to ask my mom if she authorized it but I don't care enough about it to talk about my penis with my mom.
Think TRADITIONALLY. Circumcision wasn't invented in Cleveland, you know?

It was desert folk who invented circumcision.

Yeah...I should have quoted the first post you made.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:33 pm

An uncut dick feels more pleasure during sex - FACT.

Post by **blood.angel** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 6:40 pm

I have a working theory that all nations/groups/races that have cut cocks are violent.
US
Middle East

It seems to fit the data.

Post by **ajerara** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:33 pm

The only thing is that there is a specific type of cancer that affects the foreskin that will make a comeback, but it does seem unnecessary unless you are religious and your religion demands it. It seems more like a thing that should be done only when people ask for it for religious reasons, instead of pretty much across the board as it has been done in the U.S.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:49 pm

Many people have this illusion that FGM and MGM are fundamentally different, but there are many disturbing similarities. I've been researching this issue for quite some time now, and there is absolutely no justification for routine male circimcusion. It is a mutilating surgery that permanently deprives the male of significant erogenous tissue, not to mention loss of other sexual and immunological function.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:01 pm

blood.angel wrote:I have a working theory that all nations/groups/races that have cut cocks are violent.
US
Middle East

It seems to fit the data.

I believe ashley montague has come to similar conclusions. He discovered a correlation between certain cultural features and the practice of male circumcision. I'll try to find the reference after I come home from work.

edit: btw the introduction of male circumcision into north american society is a bit of an anomaly - it was introduced to cure masturbation, which was thought to cause many terrible ailments including epilepsy, madness, and death.

believe it or not, female circumcision was practiced (to a lesser extent) in the US in the 20th century. There is even a medical journal article that goes through techniques of female circumcision.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:23 pm

Doesn't a female circumcision prevent from ever having an orgasm?