|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Circumcision
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
This was before Kinsey.
So I Googled and besides learning more of what Google will not autofill, I learned more about how fucked up people are when it comes to sex.
Still my point stands. People masturbate. Circumcised men who had their sons circumcised masturbated. They knew it did not work as a preventative.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
As I understand it, the fad for circumcision in the US got a real big boost from it being touted as a masturbation preventative.
That was indeed a major reason why it caught on in a big way a century or so ago.
I can testify that it doesn't work.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still my point stands. People masturbate. Circumcised men who had their sons circumcised masturbated. They knew it did not work as a preventative.
I think we need to separate why it was first touted in goy society in the 19th century, and why it perpetuated after that. It is true that certain people claimed it would prevent "onanism," and it is also true that it doesn't, and that people know that and still have their kids circumcised. There is no contradiction here.
I think nowadays many people (goyim) who have their boys chopped do it because they want them to "look like dad." A generation ago it was simply "well, that's what everybody does." I doubt anybody in the last 100 years has thought it curbs wankification.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WearyPilgrim
Shipmate
# 14593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Circumcision was common amongst the ancient peoples of this land, usually carried out at the iniation ceremonies into manhood. Why? Because that is what they did and had always done.
Surely the evidence from the USA is as good as anything else I can think of for this thesis, Gee D. Presumably the first time it got done, somebody had a reason, but these things get lost in the mists of time.
While I fully respect the Jewish tradition of circumcision (and I would add, for what it's worth, that though I'm a Gentile I'm one of the "cut"), it has long struck me that circumcision is an extraordinarily odd way of "marking" one as part of a particular group. Whether God mandated it for Israel or whether --- if one chooses to take a higher critical approach to the Hebrew Bible --- it was a custom whose origins are lost in antiquity and the Hebrews chose it as the means by which to identify their male children as Israelites --- either way, it seems bizarre. Why this and not tattooing, which was prohibited? A tattoo would have a similarly permanent effect, and would have been --- face it --- much less strange. Two hundred foreskins to buy a wife (1 Samuel 18:27)? Ya gotta admit, that's definitely "out there."
Posts: 383 | From: Sedgwick, Maine USA | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Because tattoing was associated with ancestor worship, whereas circumcision was a sign of covenant submission to deity.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yeah, but why? I mean, no sane man (IMNSVHO) is going to look at his willy and say to himself, "I know, wouldn't it be great if I got a knife or sharp stone and cut a bit of it off to show I love my god."
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Token sacrifice?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Not exactly 'token', is it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
.....and she said:
"MMmmm, I didn't know they made cheese and onion flavour condoms"
....and I said:
"I'm not wearing a condom" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Yes, I suppose circumcision does cut down on the build up of the old knob-cheese, but I'd be really interested to know how one...ahem, 'knocks one out' with any great efficiency if one is cut?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yeah, but why? I mean, no sane man (IMNSVHO) is going to look at his willy and say to himself, "I know, wouldn't it be great if I got a knife or sharp stone and cut a bit of it off to show I love my god."
It is a way to separate the car buyers from the tire kickers and every guy has one to lose.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not exactly 'token', is it?
I suppose it depends on how much you cut off (or how much you have that will be left
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) )
Maybe it's a little bit in lieu of death: a whole-body sacrifice.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
When it comes to the point, it's surely a matter of taste.
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
I'd be really interested to know how one...ahem, 'knocks one out' with any great efficiency if one is cut?
Obviously the Yanks are just as much a load of tossers as the rest of us, so they can evidently do it. I think they use some kind of lubrication - WD40 maybe, or 3 in 1.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If you google you find a lot of folk asking and answering this question. The answer appears to be, much the same way - perhaps more vigourously, perhaps with lube.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Googling this subject might lead some of us into ways we really shouldn't explore too often ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Kroenen
Apprentice
# 16822
|
Posted
I don't really want to Google it for fear of what I might find: I already find far too many pictures of single barrelled pump action yoghurt rifles as it is. However I would imagine that if one was circumcised, the easiest way to coax forth the custard to start with an 'up stroke' i.e.pulling away from the belly. I would have thought that to commence with a 'down stroke' would be rather painful. Would this be correct?
--------------------
God loves you so much that He created Hell, just in case you don't love Him back.
Posts: 34 | From: Bristol | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
50 years or more ago, when I was supposed to learn about such matters, sex education was very sketchy, to say the least and it was not until years later that I found out what circumcision is. In a clergy household, circumcision was something religious that the Bible goes on about at some length. I would never have imagined it had anything to do with the penis.
However, in retrospect I do wish I had asked at confirmation class what circumcision was!
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Obviously the Yanks are just as much a load of tossers as the rest of us, so they can evidently do it. I think they use some kind of lubrication - WD40 maybe, or 3 in 1.
It's been a personal "revelation" to me to find a Salvation Army officer posting jocular comments about masturbation! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Maybe the Sally Anne in the land of its birth is different than it is over here, where I've had the distinct impression that "onanism" is one of those things that is incompatible with Holiness, and not to be joked about! There is a large SA corps center in my neighborhood and the corps officers frequent my local coffee shop -- I'll need to ask one of them about this!
But, seriously, does nearly every thread here need to end up as a Yanks-versus-Brits discussion?
Mudfrog, if you would like to know how a circumcised man can manage self-pleasure, you don't have to cross the Pond -- you could just ask the Prince of Wales! He was "done" by a moyel. [Further evidence in support of Ad Orientem's suspicion of a massive Jewish Conspiracy to rob gentiles of their foreskins! ... Hava Nagila! Hava Nagila!]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.
But how common is that in reality? America would have no native born children and Judaism only converts.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.
But how common is that in reality? America would have no native born children and Judaism only converts.
Not usual, maybe. But it does happen. (And I didn't say 'impossible', just 'difficult'.)
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.
It wouldn’t just be offensive. It would be to say, at least to a Jew,* that he isn’t welcome in our country as a Jew.
While it might not be intentionally anti-semitic to ban circumcision, it would become that in practice.
* I haven’t studied the laws on circumcision in Islam, so I don’t know if it is mandated the way it is in Judaism.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.
It wouldn’t just be offensive. It would be to say, at least to a Jew,* that he isn’t welcome in our country as a Jew.
While it might not be intentionally anti-semitic to ban circumcision, it would become that in practice.
Not all hypothetical ... and, in of all places, GERMANY! Fortunately, saner heads prevailed -- though it is worth noting that 100 German law-makers were quite prepared to send German Jews (and Muslims) the message that they're not welcome in Germany (at least if they practice their religion faithfully). ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
1. In the UK circumcision was in part a class thing -- never (except for medical reasons) among the lower classes, sometimes (see the previous reference to HRH the Prince of Wales and his brothers) among the upper classes and, I suppose, frequently among the upwardly mobile middle classes (or at least, those who aspired to be upwardly mobile).
2. Don't assume that the decisions about circumcisions are being made by the fathers. It was my wife, not I, who insisted on our son being circumcised...with the full consent (in advance) of our obstetrician who informed us that all the boys he delivered were done and that was that. And it is my daughter, not her husband, who has decided that if their child (due in a month) is a boy, he will be done. My wife's decision was about health -- and the fact that both my father and her father had to undergo the operation later in life. I don't know about my daughter's reasoning, but I suspect health comes into it. I haven't checked out her husband so I don't know if "looking like daddy" is a factor.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
1.
2.My wife's decision was about health -- and the fact that both my father and her father had to undergo the operation later in life. I don't know about my daughter's reasoning, but I suspect health comes into it. I haven't checked out her husband so I don't know if "looking like daddy" is a factor.
John
Interestingly, circumcision is no longer recommended as a remedy for phimosis. The preferred intervention in Canada now is a single slit to relieve the restriction and to leave the foreskin otherwise intact.
It's not recommended for any other reason either and certainly not anything that can be cured with pharmaceutical intervention.
As for your obstetrician, no Canadian medical body currently recommends routine infant circumcision and the hospital medical staff where my brothers children were born no longer recommend the practice. The Canadian medical establishment really has changed its tune.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???
[ 26. April 2014, 00:11: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???
Here is a detailed scholarly article, "The British Royal Family's Circumcision Tradition," which debunks some elements of the "legend." The authors claim that royal circumcision only goes back to the time of Victoria, and that it was not motivated by Davidic royal identifications.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The torygraph says this - so apparently it would be George the 1st's fault.
However, the sociologists say not.
[ 26. April 2014, 00:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The torygraph says this - so apparently it would be George the 1st's fault.
However, the sociologists say not.
We "cross-posted".... According to the article I linked, it isn't George I's fault after all....
In fact, the practice may not even go back to Victoria's time, but may have begun with Elizabeth and Philip and their infant, Charles.
Oops! Cross-posted again!
[ 26. April 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I rather liked the Hezekiah line of thought but Queen Victoria is perhaps more likely. Rather than speak of Hezekiah we can call her the Vashti of England.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???
Sounds more like British Israelitism than history. Though the Diana bit has circulated on the internet for ages.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???
Sounds more like British Israelitism than history. Though the Diana bit has circulated on the internet for ages.
I think that you're right on this, although I had enjoyed a moment or two trying to draft an information bullet for the Minister on this one.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?
If someone puts a question in the House, the minister needs the information. I assure you that, if princely foreskins be discussed in that Campbellford Procrastinator-Mercury or the Guillotine de Chaudières or a broadcast the night before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have all of the details and be ready to o-so-casually be master of the facts by 2.00 pm.
In my former RL, we spent many hours preparing them for possible queries. The system, invented by Hon George Hees (aka Gorgeous George) in the late 1950s, involves a small posse of bureaucrats reviewing the news from 5.00 am to 7.00 am, identifying hot issues or issues likely to be raised at Question Period that afternoon, the list going to ADMs for approval at 8.00, runners shooting through the corridors with the Questions to be answered and landing them on a second dedicated team of functionaries (myself as one of them, as I had been around for a long time, and was there at 8.15 most mornings); we prepared draft bullet point answers, with a fuller backgrounder by 9.00, approved with changes by managers at 9.15, directors at 9.30, directors general at 9.45, and in the assistant deputy's office through the director general of communications by 10.30. Copies then to the Minister's political office. At every stage, the QP material had priority-- waving the zebra folders, we could stroll past receptionists and into any meeting other than human resources stuff.
Question period briefing staff prepared their briefing, copied the political office, and then went into see the Minister at 1.40, just before 2.00 question period. In any case, this particular question might be ruled out of order.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I hope the either that the rumor about British royal princes being cut is untrue or that the rumor about Diana preventing it for her sons is true, because my fantasies about the princely brothers are much better with them intact. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
George Hees. A bit before my time, but still a legend around here; he was the MP for Northumberland for ages.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. One suggested approach to preventing harmful female genital cutting in the UK was to promote, instead, a ritual cutting - for example, the making of a tiny incision in the external female genitalia. As I understand it, though, this approach was strongly opposed by campaigners, because it continued to promote the idea that female genital cutting is a cultural tradition that we should respect, at least as far as allowing a harmless symbolic alternative.
Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?
If someone puts a question in the House, the minister needs the information. I assure you that, if princely foreskins be discussed in that Campbellford Procrastinator-Mercury or the Guillotine de Chaudières or a broadcast the night before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have all of the details and be ready to o-so-casually be master of the facts by 2.00 pm.
In my former RL, we spent many hours preparing them for possible queries. The system, invented by Hon George Hees (aka Gorgeous George) in the late 1950s, involves a small posse of bureaucrats reviewing the news from 5.00 am to 7.00 am, identifying hot issues or issues likely to be raised at Question Period that afternoon, the list going to ADMs for approval at 8.00, runners shooting through the corridors with the Questions to be answered and landing them on a second dedicated team of functionaries (myself as one of them, as I had been around for a long time, and was there at 8.15 most mornings); we prepared draft bullet point answers, with a fuller backgrounder by 9.00, approved with changes by managers at 9.15, directors at 9.30, directors general at 9.45, and in the assistant deputy's office through the director general of communications by 10.30. Copies then to the Minister's political office. At every stage, the QP material had priority-- waving the zebra folders, we could stroll past receptionists and into any meeting other than human resources stuff.
Question period briefing staff prepared their briefing, copied the political office, and then went into see the Minister at 1.40, just before 2.00 question period. In any case, this particular question might be ruled out of order.
A good friend at church showed me her cheek that George Hees kissed. Her father was Hees' campaign manager and fetched him from Montreal to get him to run in Northumberland.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?
Because circumcision is not a symbolic alternative to the practice of removing the penis.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. One suggested approach to preventing harmful female genital cutting in the UK was to promote, instead, a ritual cutting - for example, the making of a tiny incision in the external female genitalia. As I understand it, though, this approach was strongly opposed by campaigners, because it continued to promote the idea that female genital cutting is a cultural tradition that we should respect, at least as far as allowing a harmless symbolic alternative.
Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?
Exactly.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit, while male circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure (unlike female genital cutting). There is no real parallel between circumcision and female genital cutting.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
What a ridiculous comparison.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit, while male circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure (unlike female genital cutting). There is no real parallel between circumcision and female genital cutting.
References?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis the Menace
Shipmate
# 11833
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
I don't really want to Google it for fear of what I might find: I already find far too many pictures of single barrelled pump action yoghurt rifles as it is. However I would imagine that if one was circumcised, the easiest way to coax forth the custard to start with an 'up stroke' i.e.pulling away from the belly. I would have thought that to commence with a 'down stroke' would be rather painful. Would this be correct?
Have never noticed/thought about whether I start on the up or down stroke!
There are varying degrees of 'cut'. For instance my parnter has very little 'movement' so lube is necessary for almost any hanky panky, whereas I have a bit more. Most guys around my age here in Oz are 'cut' and most gay guys here prefer cut ones.
--------------------
"Till we cast our crowns before Him; Lost in wonder, love, and praise."
Posts: 853 | From: Newcastle NSW Australia | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit,
A bit of a non-sequitur, I think. Jews and Muslims don't circumcise because they think it confers medical benefits.
quote:
Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.
This is more to the point. We would not permit a religious or cultural practice that caused significant harm to children (such as a clitoridectomy, castration or whatever). We do permit things such as male circumcision, where the damage, if any, is small. If some mainstream religion tattooed infants as an initiation ceremony, we'd probably permit that too, whilst maintaining the 18 age limit for other tattoos.
One could certainly make a symbolic, cosmetic cut in a baby girl's genitalia that would not cause ongoing pain or impede sexual function, but there is nevertheless a real question as to whether a harmless cosmetic cut that symbolizes a horrific mutilation should be permitted.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
What a ridiculous comparison.
And comparing FGM and circumcision isn't?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
What a ridiculous comparison.
And comparing FGM and circumcision isn't?
No they're both ridiculous.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That is a very broad word, ridiculous.
So is painful.
It is painful if I step on your toe.
It is painful if I run over your toe with an armored vehicle.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
