German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Bram Kaandorp]

Originally Posted by Moss

Currently I'm left with the somewhat interesting question of what does circumcision mean to different people, namely how much is actually cut in different circumstances, cultures and nations.

Good point. FGM takes many different forms, so why not circumcision.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Walabio

When you claim that you are typical for a man with a sexually mutilated penis. You know well that if you are not as tight as a drum, it is because the mutilator erred in your favor. You are very lucky that the doctor did mutilator did not realize the mistake and cut off more.

Where did I claim that?

Quote:

You know perfectly well that you are a typical for a man with a sexually mutilated penis.

Where did I claim I wasn't atypical for a man that was circumcised?

Quote:

As stated, you know that you are atypical.(snip... wordswordswords)

Look, you made a couple of statements that are false. You then accused me of being a troll & lying followed by a desperate move of the goal posts.

Sad thing is, you are on what I believe to be the right side of the argument yet are so caught up in your emotions you're making a rather poor go of it.

[Walabio]

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

Good point. FGM takes many different forms, so why not circumcision.

Yes, MGM (male genital mutilation) has many forms, but the standard American form leaves the as little as the inner mucosa of the prępuces as possible, as much of the fręnulum as possible, leave the penis with no glans-coverage or folds while flaccid, and the shaftskin and what little is left of the prępuce as tight as a drumhead when erect. This American standard is the way it is because Americans specifically sexually mutilate the penises of their children for preventing masturbation.

[Walabio]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Where did I claim that?

Upon rereading, you did not. I withdraw that claim. However, you state that you can masturbate somewhat like an intact man and then imply that other sexually mutilated men can too. This is an hasty generalization:

Americans sexually mutilate the penises of their sons specifically so that they cannot masturbate. The generalization that you can masturbate without lubrication applying to most other sexually mutilated men is wrong because most other sexually mutilated men are sexually mutilated _“*CORRECTLY*”_ so they cannot.

Originally Posted by Redtail

Where did I claim I wasn't atypical for a man that was circumcised?

After checking, specifically nowhere, but you claimed that sexually mutilated men can masturbate without lubrication, which is generally false.

Originally Posted by Redtail

Look, you made a couple of statements that are false. You then accused me of being a troll & lying followed by a desperate move of the goal posts.

Sorry, but you made improper generalizations. I pointed them out.

Originally Posted by Redtail

Sad thing is, you are on what I believe to be the right side of the argument yet are so caught up in your emotions you're making a rather poor go of it.

I admit that I let mine emotions get the better of me, but you also wrote in hasty generalizations. Above this message, I describe a typical American sexually mutilated penis.

[brazenlilraisin]

Originally Posted by Walabio

Yes, MGM (male genital mutilation) has many forms, but the standard American form leaves the as little as the inner mucosa of the prępuces as possible, as much of the fręnulum as possible, leave the penis with no glans-coverage or folds while flaccid, and the shaftskin and what little is left of the prępuce as tight as a drumhead when erect. This American standard is the way it is because Americans specifically sexually mutilate the penises of their children for preventing masturbation.

It didn't work.

Your zealotry is ridiculous, as in worthy of ridicule and nothing more.

[Bram Kaandorp]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

It didn't work.

Your zealotry is ridiculous, as in worthy of ridicule and nothing more.

Just because it didn't work in stamping out masturbation doesn't make it not the original reason for doing it.

Also, who is zealous? The ones who want to give the child the choice when he's 18, or the ones who want that choice to be with the parents?

Suppose abortion choice was up to the parents, and not the daugher?

But of course, the two are quite different, in the sense that the daughter would have to carry a baby to full term (9 months), and the son has to live with a circumcised penis (for the rest of his life)..

Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that either is worse than the other. I'm merely pointing out that in any other case, otherwise reasonable people would be pro-choice, but not in this case.

[Menalitus]

Originally Posted by Walabio

You should sue for injuries. It was an unnecessary amputation. Doctors should only amputate for extreme disease and injury. What that greedy mutilator did was the equivalent of plucking out an eye for conjunctivitis. What you needed was tissue-expansion:

If you would have put your forefingers into your pręputial opening, had your thumbs then pinch from the outside against your forefingers and then pulled forward while stretching outward, while moving your fingers around your pręputial opening, you could have resolved the problem in a month or 2. A _“*REAL*”_ Doctor could have given you a steroidal cream which would help the tissue expand. The end result would be to permenantly lengthen and widen your prępuce. With a wider pręputial opening, no surgery would be necessary.

Because of that quack, you needlessly lost 10s of thousands of nerve-endings and require lubricant to relieve yourself because you no longer have a prępuce. The abrasion of your close will cause keratinization, further deadening sensation. If I would be you, I would contact “Attorneys for the Rights of the Child | Safeguarding Children’s Rights to Genital Integrity”:

http://arclaw.org/

”The mutilating monster owes you money!

To be fair he did recommend stretching first and explained at length my choices. It was 100% my decision to have the surgery. I am satisfied with the result now I am healed but that is not the point. What I had was not MGM, performing unnecessary surgery on infants is. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

As I have said before, masterbating is better-easier if you are uncut. I am however still capable now without lubrication it just means using a different and in my opinion inferior technique.