except it is mutilation when it's about little children, other than that, no moral judgments. you would call removal of labia from little girls mutilation, why wouldn't you call it mutilation for little boys. are you paid off by the big mohel?
Circumcision is an issue a lot like Gun Rights; I don’t see how somebody can still be on one side after doing any amount of research. The medical benefits of circumcising children are almost nonexistent outside of a few outlier conditions where the foreskin is improperly developed, and it can lead to ongoing loss of sensation and is unnecessarily traumatic for children.
I've literally got into arguments about circumcision where the other person claimed I don't know how sex works because I mentioned the mechanical benefits of a foreskin despite me having a foreskin and them not. The thought of having been maimed at birth by your parents is not an easy pill to swallow.
They're good people who thought they were making the correct decision, and they were wrong.
Not that hard to come to terms with. By the time men start thinking about this, they should be capable of understanding that their parents are human beings, not infallible.
Well, look what you're offering, and look what you're asking.
As you said, the payment for agreeing with you is that they accept, basically out of the blue, that their parents "maimed them at birth."
What you're offering, the boon and reward, is that they can observe their dick, which they can literally look down upon, tug a bit, and say "Seems fine to me," is actually mutilated.
this. thousands of years ago, circumcision historically was done for a few reasons...
it was cleaner and reduced infections... as daily bathing was more rare, not having a flap meant not getting gunk built up under the flap, meant less infections
it supposedly desensitizes the head, allowing the guy to last longer in bed.
it was thought to reduce masturbation, because reasons
with one religion in particular, the "practitioner" literally removes it with his mouth. sometimes he even eats it.
compared to today's circumstances, if you're not doing it for a serious medical issue, you shouldn't do it.
oh, and some guys get cut so tight, that it literally restricts how big you can get during an erection. assuming you have good blood pressure, and the internal tendon (or whatever it's called) isn't excessively short, your erection can be bigger when you're uncircumcised. i'm not a monster or anything, but a couple of girls have even commented on it... they didn't even realize i was uncircumcised until after i wasn't hard anymore.
God does not ask people to do morally wrong things period.
It could be argued that it wasn't morally wrong because God asked it of them but could be morally wrong otherwise. Kind of like wiping out Canaanites; generally genocide is morally wrong, but if God tells you to it's morally wrong not to.
Agreed. Assuming that the Bible is a 100% accurate record of human events and God's interaction with those humans, circumcision was a commandment for a very specific tribe for a very specific period of time. It cannot be extrapolated to refer to the whole human race.
It could also have been morally correct in a time where it would improve quality of life and safety, wherein the progression of technology and knowledge has removed those from being the case rendering it simple mutilation with no benefit.
God ain't spoken to us in a long time, his teachings can in fact have become outdated by the passage of time. In fact, its even possible that he has sent people out to argue against it as his new messengers to remove the need for his direct intervention.
Actually the circumcision that was practiced in Biblical times was significantly different from the form of circumcision that is practiced today. In Biblical times, circumcision just referred to cutting off the part of the foreskin that overhangs off the glans, leaving the glans largely covered. This preserves most of the functions of the foreskin.
The Rabinical leadership changed circumcision to be more radical, removing more tissue roughly around the year 140 A.D. This was changed because Jewish men were stretching their foreskin remnants to totally cover their glanses, in order to assimilate with the dominant Greek society. Greek culture embraced nudity, but saw the exposed glans as indicating an erection, and therefor obscene to show in public.
The only thing I find weirder than couples who date each other for years without getting married are the couples who get married despite never wanting kids. Especially when neither person is religious.
I know some couples like this, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
maybe legal reasons like hospital visitation and property assignments or they are still serious about the formality of being committed to the relationship
Yes but then marriage becomes something more akin to a business partnership with negotiated costs and benefits. You gain hospital visitation, tax benefits, etc... You risk unfavorable disposition of communal assets if there is a divorce.
And I doubt any of these couples sat down with a lawyer and/or accountant to do the due diligence one normally would for a comparable business partnership.
Imagine seeing two people happily cohabitating, for an extended period of time, with no contactually obligation to one another, and then thinking “that’s weird”.
I'm with my girlfriend (3 year relationship now) because she's amazing and we complement each other in so many ways. We're considering children but it seems like it's not a must for either of us right now. I don't know man, she's incredible and that's why I want to be with her. Everything else is a bonus.
Even if you remove the religious aspect from consideration, it ignores the primary benefit for monogamy: to provide a more stable environment for procreation and rearing of young.
Otherwise why not just do what Leo does: catch at 18, release at 25?
Well the religious aspect is what turned it from "serial monogamy" into "committed." From simply being together until it no longer benefits, into a sealed deal until death.
Because if it was only for raising young, there would be little point at remaining together past 55~ when nearly all possible children are fully grown.
except it is mutilation when it's about little children, other than that, no moral judgments. you would call removal of labia from little girls mutilation, why wouldn't you call it mutilation for little boys. are you paid off by the big mohel?
I agree with most of that... but what about circumcising little children?
Circumcision is an issue a lot like Gun Rights; I don’t see how somebody can still be on one side after doing any amount of research. The medical benefits of circumcising children are almost nonexistent outside of a few outlier conditions where the foreskin is improperly developed, and it can lead to ongoing loss of sensation and is unnecessarily traumatic for children.
If you’re in favor or neutral about Circumsision then just watch this : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc
Eric Clopper is kind of crazy but I guarantee he’ll change your mind.
Whoa. It's two hours.
I've literally got into arguments about circumcision where the other person claimed I don't know how sex works because I mentioned the mechanical benefits of a foreskin despite me having a foreskin and them not. The thought of having been maimed at birth by your parents is not an easy pill to swallow.
They're good people who thought they were making the correct decision, and they were wrong.
Not that hard to come to terms with. By the time men start thinking about this, they should be capable of understanding that their parents are human beings, not infallible.
Well, look what you're offering, and look what you're asking.
As you said, the payment for agreeing with you is that they accept, basically out of the blue, that their parents "maimed them at birth."
What you're offering, the boon and reward, is that they can observe their dick, which they can literally look down upon, tug a bit, and say "Seems fine to me," is actually mutilated.
What's the incentive in this scenario?
this. thousands of years ago, circumcision historically was done for a few reasons...
compared to today's circumstances, if you're not doing it for a serious medical issue, you shouldn't do it.
oh, and some guys get cut so tight, that it literally restricts how big you can get during an erection. assuming you have good blood pressure, and the internal tendon (or whatever it's called) isn't excessively short, your erection can be bigger when you're uncircumcised. i'm not a monster or anything, but a couple of girls have even commented on it... they didn't even realize i was uncircumcised until after i wasn't hard anymore.
It could be argued that it wasn't morally wrong because God asked it of them but could be morally wrong otherwise. Kind of like wiping out Canaanites; generally genocide is morally wrong, but if God tells you to it's morally wrong not to.
Agreed. Assuming that the Bible is a 100% accurate record of human events and God's interaction with those humans, circumcision was a commandment for a very specific tribe for a very specific period of time. It cannot be extrapolated to refer to the whole human race.
It could also have been morally correct in a time where it would improve quality of life and safety, wherein the progression of technology and knowledge has removed those from being the case rendering it simple mutilation with no benefit.
God ain't spoken to us in a long time, his teachings can in fact have become outdated by the passage of time. In fact, its even possible that he has sent people out to argue against it as his new messengers to remove the need for his direct intervention.
I consider cosmetic mutilation wrong. Nothing else needs to be said. That's all there is to it.
Actually the circumcision that was practiced in Biblical times was significantly different from the form of circumcision that is practiced today. In Biblical times, circumcision just referred to cutting off the part of the foreskin that overhangs off the glans, leaving the glans largely covered. This preserves most of the functions of the foreskin.
The Rabinical leadership changed circumcision to be more radical, removing more tissue roughly around the year 140 A.D. This was changed because Jewish men were stretching their foreskin remnants to totally cover their glanses, in order to assimilate with the dominant Greek society. Greek culture embraced nudity, but saw the exposed glans as indicating an erection, and therefor obscene to show in public.
Here's an illustration of the difference between the forms of circumcision
The only thing I find weirder than couples who date each other for years without getting married are the couples who get married despite never wanting kids. Especially when neither person is religious.
I know some couples like this, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all.
maybe legal reasons like hospital visitation and property assignments or they are still serious about the formality of being committed to the relationship
Yes but then marriage becomes something more akin to a business partnership with negotiated costs and benefits. You gain hospital visitation, tax benefits, etc... You risk unfavorable disposition of communal assets if there is a divorce.
And I doubt any of these couples sat down with a lawyer and/or accountant to do the due diligence one normally would for a comparable business partnership.
Imagine seeing two people happily cohabitating, for an extended period of time, with no contactually obligation to one another, and then thinking “that’s weird”.
I'm with my girlfriend (3 year relationship now) because she's amazing and we complement each other in so many ways. We're considering children but it seems like it's not a must for either of us right now. I don't know man, she's incredible and that's why I want to be with her. Everything else is a bonus.
That's the problem of turning a religious ceremony into a government label and romantic gesture.
It hollows it out into something people do without any real thought about why they do it, beyond bureaucratic benefits.
Even if you remove the religious aspect from consideration, it ignores the primary benefit for monogamy: to provide a more stable environment for procreation and rearing of young.
Otherwise why not just do what Leo does: catch at 18, release at 25?
Well the religious aspect is what turned it from "serial monogamy" into "committed." From simply being together until it no longer benefits, into a sealed deal until death.
Because if it was only for raising young, there would be little point at remaining together past 55~ when nearly all possible children are fully grown.
good, because male genital mutilation is worse.
It absolutely is not. It is a Judaizing practice.
Not talking about you personally, but if you do this for a wife, then you're a retarded simp.