Poll: Poll: If you ever have a daughter, will you have her circumcised?

Recommended Videos

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
In case non-African users don't know, the FCG Education and Networking Project estimates more than half of females in Kenya are circumcised, so it's pretty much the norm here. However, a backlash started in recent years among women who felt there were certain disadvantages to being circumcised, and there are numerous websites devoted to rehabilitation. On the other hand, there are also lots of guys (and some women) who argue that being circumcised is better.

Personally, I'm cut, but my parents are hardly religious so I'm not sure why they had me circumcised, but not that I've really been jumping to have that conversation with them. If you have a daughter, will you have her circumcised?
 

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
Serris said:
for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

for women, there is zero advantage to being circumcised, and in fact poses many health risks during the operation.
i would die before i let anyone touch my daughter with a knife in that place for no good reason whatsoever.
Well you're certainly half right ;)
 

Rblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
497
0
0
as I understand it circumcision in women is mutalation and leaves the person scarred for life. so no, never. No matter what benefits it proves to provide in the future. If it is for religious reasons you should think real hard, and read the passage involved and see if there is no way to reach the intended goal besides causing incredible bodily harm to your child. I myself, and I'm not even a father yet, would not be able to follow a god that forced me to do my child harm.

and I hope this is not trolling, because this is some pretty serious stuff
 

EonEire

New member
Feb 7, 2008
142
0
0
Serris said:
for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.
I have to disagree there, I'm not circumcised and its only unhygienic if you are lazy it takes possibly 6 seconds extra in the shower, that's it.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
Serris said:
for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

for women, there is zero advantage to being circumcised, and in fact poses many health risks during the operation.
i would die before i let anyone touch my daughter with a knife in that place for no good reason whatsoever.
This is true. If I've got my facts straight, circumcision for men is really only a health benefit if anything. But circumcision for women can be very detrimental and unsafe.

It's not just a coincidence that there are more groups against female circumcision then there are against male circumcision.
 

Rayne870

New member
Nov 28, 2010
1,250
0
0
No because WTF it doesn't do anything except make it "look better" and then there's the idiot doctors that screw it up.

Here's something deeply personal, when I was 5-12years old I had a life threatening illness and at the age of 8 my parents put me in charge of a decision, have my spleen removed to cure the illness or keep trying other stuff. Well I kept my spleen and eventually doctors figured out it was a virus and it would go away on it's own.

Now then at 12 they brought me in to a doctor to have me circumcised, on the idea that it would help with what was described as the walls in my bladder being hardened and that causing me to pee my pants. Obviously my parents were friggin morons and didn't realize that foreskin has nothing to do with the freaking bladder, not to mention that they caused the problem in the first place because we took long car trips without stopping the entire day for a piss.

And now I'm the proud owner of a disfigured dick because the doc did a half assed circumcision. So yeah thanks mom and dad for hiring a "specialist".

Edit: woops this was about men, uh. For women, it does nothing at all, the outer labia are for protecting the other stuff. So there is no point except mutilating your daughter.
 

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
Lilani said:
Serris said:
for men, circumsision is a matter of hygiene: it's not necessary, but it's more hygienic.

for women, there is zero advantage to being circumcised, and in fact poses many health risks during the operation.
i would die before i let anyone touch my daughter with a knife in that place for no good reason whatsoever.
This is true. If I've got my facts straight, circumcision for men is really only a health benefit if anything. But circumcision for women can be very detrimental and unsafe.

It's not just a coincidence that there are more groups against female circumcision then there are against male circumcision.
So you don't think it is a result of western religions targeting men's genitals and forcing them to internalise and accept their abuses whilst finding the similar practices of non christian religions abhorrent?
 

SilentCom

New member
Mar 14, 2011
2,417
0
0
There's circumcision for women? Actually I think I heard about it a while back and would disagree in its application. But seriously, you pretty much copied the circumcision for men post word for word.
 

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
SilentCom said:
There's circumcision for women? Actually I think I heard about it a while back and would disagree in its application. But seriously, you pretty much copied the circumcision for men post word for word.
Why do you think I did that?


On a slightly unrelated note I'm a little shocked that some people seem willing to risk having their theoretical daughters tortured just so they can throw theoretical poo at a woman on the internet.
 

thylasos

New member
Aug 12, 2009
1,920
0
0
No. Female Genital Mutilation, as it's known outside commmunities which practice it, is a fucking barbaric practice merited by NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

I realise the OP may have been made in sarcasm, but personally I don't see the humour.
 

BioHazardMan

New member
Sep 22, 2009
444
0
0
John Marcone said:
No. Circumcision in general is a barbaric practice. It has no advantages for either gender.
Even the hygiene issue is bullshit. If you believe that then shave yourself bald and get false teeth now. Even better, bathe and drink bleach.
This. I think cutting off parts of the genitalia should be considered child abuse, especially because it does more possible harm than anything good. The possible complications of the process alone should warrant it's dis-use. And of course we go back to who is lazy to not take a few extra seconds in the shower?
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
BlindTom said:
So you don't think it is a result of western religions targeting men's genitals and forcing them to internalise and accept their abuses whilst finding the similar practices of non christian religions abhorrent?
Wow, that's quite a targeted, biased, and non-objective answer you've got there.

Anyhow, my point was that I don't think male circumcision is as much of a problem because it essentially poses no permanent health risks, apart from infection as with any cut you might receive. Female circumcision, on the other hand, has a much greater risk of infections or problems simply due to the nature of the organ (and the conditions which the procedures are typically done).

Now, circumcision at infancy is a whole other can of worms. I'm not quite sure how I feel on that yet, but I'm more leaning toward that's the sort of decision the individual should make when they're old enough. I don't think a parent has the right to choose to permanently change the physical appearance of their child.
 

BlueberryMUNCH

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,892
0
0
...bloody hell this made me laugh xD.

Nice one lad. I, too, saw what you did thaaar.
Edit: I also find it pretty funny how some people don't get the joke. Eeeep.
 

balanovich

New member
Jan 25, 2010
235
0
0
Circumcision is bad for men. Overtime it reduces the cock's sensitivity.
...
may be good if premature ejaculation runs in the family though :p.

It's stupid and barbaric for women.
There are different degrees of FGM. There's a lot of stuff to remove; clitoris, and two sets of lips...
 

BlindTom

New member
Aug 8, 2008
929
0
0
Lilani said:
BlindTom said:
So you don't think it is a result of western religions targeting men's genitals and forcing them to internalise and accept their abuses whilst finding the similar practices of non christian religions abhorrent?
Wow, that's quite a targeted, biased, and non-objective answer you've got there.

Anyhow, my point was that I don't think male circumcision is as much of a problem because it essentially poses no permanent health risks, apart from infection as with any cut you might receive. Female circumcision, on the other hand, has a much greater risk of infections or problems simply due to the nature of the organ (and the conditions which the procedures are typically done).

Now, circumcision at infancy is a whole other can of worms. I'm not quite sure how I feel on that yet, but I'm more leaning toward that's the sort of decision the individual should make when they're old enough. I don't think a parent has the right to choose to permanently change the physical appearance of their child.
I like the cut of your jib with regards to the protection for children thing. Do you think that women should also have the right to have their genitals voluntarily mutilated as well? After all as long as both sexes are aware of the differing risks they should be allowed to mutilate themselves as much as they want right?
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Oh goody, a thread with an implied false equivalency between a cosmetic surgery and a surgery that causes significant harm.

On one hand we have the removal of the foreskin, which has not been consistently linked to health or sexual problems and sometimes the opposite. On the other hand we have a surgery that routinely destroys the sex organ of the person and causes incontinence which brings about its own set of health issues. Clearly they are equivalent.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
BlindTom said:
I like the cut of your jib with regards to the protection for children thing. Do you think that women should also have the right to have their genitals voluntarily mutilated as well? After all as long as both sexes are aware of the differing risks they should be allowed to mutilate themselves as much as they want right?
I think if the woman is aware of the risks and she isn't being pressured in any way, she should have the right to do what she wants to her body. After all, just as with that one guy who wants to be a cat, [http://www.uglymales.com/wc/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Dennis-Abner.jpg] people will do to their bodies what they want to do and if they want it badly enough, they'll do whatever it takes to get it done.