Author Topic: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?  (Read 5673 times)

The Abdominal Snoman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 23503
  • DON'T BE A TRAITOR TO YOUR TRIBE
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2016, 04:38:15 PM »
That image is among the sickest I have seen in my life

Does the father stand there like a cuck too??

I get a natural reaction to smash their heads in, that baby is raped and mutilated at the same time

Many babies have got herpies from dirty ass Mohels...Fucking gross. I read a story years ago about the Neanderthals and how it was believed that Neanderthals use to eat human babies...And today their are Mohels who eat baby dicks. idk

falco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18329
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2016, 03:32:40 AM »
a friend of mine was born with no eyelids, they used his foreskin from his circumcision to make him two eyelids, the operation didn't work properly and he ended up cockeyed.

LMAO!

falco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18329
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2016, 03:47:39 AM »
Why it's done
By Mayo Clinic Staff

Circumcision is a religious or cultural ritual for many Jewish and Islamic families, as well as certain aboriginal tribes in Africa and Australia. Circumcision can also be a matter of family tradition, personal hygiene or preventive health care. Sometimes there's a medical need for circumcision, such as when the foreskin is too tight to be pulled back (retracted) over the glans. In other cases, particularly in certain parts of Africa, circumcision is recommended for older boys or men to reduce the risk of certain sexually transmitted infections.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.

Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
Circumcision might not be an option if certain blood-clotting disorders are present. In addition, circumcision might not be appropriate for premature babies who still require medical care in the hospital nursery.

Circumcision doesn't affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their partners.

Risks
By Mayo Clinic Staff
The most common complications associated with circumcision are bleeding and infection. Side effects related to anesthesia are possible as well.

Rarely, circumcision might result in foreskin problems. For example:

The foreskin might be cut too short or too long
The foreskin might fail to heal properly
The remaining foreskin might reattach to the end of the penis, requiring minor surgical repair

============================================================================================================

Male Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, CDC says

(Reuters) - The benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks, according a long awaited draft of federal guidelines from U.S. health officials released on Tuesday, which indicate that scientific evidence supports recommending the procedure.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that medically performed male circumcision could help decrease the risk of contracting HIV and several other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as well as other health problems.
The recommendation, which includes counseling parents of male newborns on the benefits and risks of the procedure, comes at a time when the rate of male circumcision has been decreasing in the United States.
From 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10 percent to 58 percent, according to the CDC.
The procedure, which has been subject of fierce debate, involves cutting the foreskin around the tip of the penis.
"These recommendations are based on an evaluation of available information on the health risks and benefits associated with high-quality, medically performed male circumcision and were developed to pertain to men and male newborns in the United States," the document said.
Several studies conducted in Africa indicated that circumcision could help reduce the spread of the virus that causes AIDS.
All uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex should be informed about the significant, but partial, efficacy of male circumcision in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV and some STIs through heterosexual sex, as well as the potential harms of male circumcision, the draft guidelines said.
The overall risk of adverse events associated with male circumcision is low, with minor bleeding and inflammation cited as the most common complications, according to a CDC fact sheet.
The draft recommendations are subject to a 45-day public comment period and a formal external peer review. Comments provided will be considered before recommendations are finalized, CDC said.
The agency said it developed the draft guidance based on a systematic review of all evidence on the health risks and benefits of circumcision and consultation with experts in HIV prevention and related fields.

    If someone lives in Congo and the risk of getting serious diseases is real, i'm ok with the practice, but in the western world, with easily available condoms, personal hyigiene  and medicine, i disagree.
    It decreases the glans sensitivity and hence sexual pleasure, the same reason behind female genital mutilation.

    I won't even adress the grotesque pic of the monk sucking on the baby. I'm shocked, didn't knew the ritual was held like that. My country is not rich per se and that's probably why we don't have jews overhere.

_bruce_

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 23432
  • Sam Sesambröt Sulek
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2016, 04:29:44 AM »
Disgusting practice unless there's a medical reason for it.
.

Griffith

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8784
  • .......
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2016, 05:55:00 AM »
Perhaps makes sense if people have no access to running water or live a life where personal hygiene is more difficult (like desert people) , but otherwise I doubt it is done much outside of religious/cultural practices.


mazrim

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4438
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2016, 06:18:51 AM »
It was done for medical purposes in the past but now is no longer needed in modern cultures. If it is still done in those societies it is pointless and done simply out of past practice/tradition.

goku

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2016, 06:22:52 AM »
Im not Muslim or Jew so fuck yea I consider it genital mutilation!
Thankfully my mother kept me as I am without resorting to asking the doc to slice my foreskin off.
The stats for men in first world nations suffering any diverse effects from remaining uncircumcised are incredibly low.
Can't understand why any religion sees it as a good thing to cut a healthy baby's foreskin unless done for medical reasons. Aesthetics?! fucking madness

SilverSpoon

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2016, 08:21:34 AM »
I liken it to cutting off your earlobe for religious purposes.

If one were to propose such a practice, it would no doubt be considered mutilation and silly.

But that practice done by a mohel is seen as perfectly sane.

BodyMachine

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 841
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2016, 06:46:48 AM »
It's one thing to circumcise a child for cleanliness or what have you, but to put your mouth on the penis, wtf is up with that. There is no logical reason for that, no way God would order something foolish and gross

Tapeworm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 29112
  • Hold Fast
Re: Why isn't circumcision consider male genital mutilation?
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2016, 07:11:04 AM »
a friend of mine was born with no eyelids, they used his foreskin from his circumcision to make him two eyelids, the operation didn't work properly and he ended up cockeyed.

Hey-yo!