BlackParadePixie wrote:
how so?Kyle07 wrote:
it implies that circumcised is the standard / normal
like we don’t refer to normal lady parts as “unmutilated”
Uncircumcised
-
It gives priority or dominance to circumcised, as if it was the normal one and anything not like it the “un”
like we don’t refer to normal lady parts as “unmutilated” -
You know, if you so desire another term, you can always use “intact” for “uncircumcised”.
-
That's the term my dr uses too
HeyCameron wrote:
You know, if you so desire another term, you can always use “intact” for “uncircumcised”.
Somewhat hyper -
not really...
Miko-chan wrote:
It gives priority or dominance to circumcised, as if it was the normal one and anything not like it the “un”
like we don’t refer to normal lady parts as “unmutilated”
-
maseb wrote:
Terms for many things have changed over the years, language evolves. LGBTQ+ didn't exist until fairly recently, the terms used prior are considered slurs or derogatory now by some people.
Birds18 wrote:
this is a stupid debate. People have been using the term circumcised and uncircumcised long before any of us were even alive.
That being said, natural seems to be a good way to describe a penis with a foreskin because boys are born with one, but so many boys have it removed that to them their status is "normal"
And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.
Look at historical terms for Native Americans and Black people. Just because certain terms were what was said 30 years ago doesn't make them right in today's society. -
there's absolutely NOTHING impied with the word circumcision. Anything you people are reading into is based on your own personal biases and opinions of the procedure.
-
how about we just drop it and move on to the original post.
-
I think the opriginal post has been well discussed already...if we're going to delve into arguing about semantics, then maybe this thread should be locked.
-
I think we ALL need to be careful with our words. Nobody should tease you for anything! Least of all your penis and your parents decision to not circumcize it. But you also should be careful. You wrote, "I'm lucky to have my foreskin." That implies that circumcized boys should feel unlucky.
CooperJ wrote:
That could not have be said better!!
But we who are not circ'd still get stared at in the pe locker room. I've been teased too. But, I know I'm lucky to have my foreskin.
-
I guess you could take it that way, though I sure didn't mean it like that. I guess I was implying that since so many boys are circ'd, I was lucky - oops there I go again. I can't phrase it another way - without unintentionally insulting some! Let's drop the whole discussion.
Gabraham247 wrote:
I think we ALL need to be careful with our words. Nobody should tease you for anything! Least of all your penis and your parents decision to not circumcize it. But you also should be careful. You wrote, "I'm lucky to have my foreskin." That implies that circumcized boys should feel unlucky.CooperJ wrote:
That could not have be said better!!
But we who are not circ'd still get stared at in the pe locker room. I've been teased too. But, I know I'm lucky to have my foreskin.
Somewhat hyper -
It's actually easy. I think I did it well in my post yesterday:
CooperJ wrote:
I guess you could take it that way, though I sure didn't mean it like that. I guess I was implying that since so many boys are circ'd, I was lucky - oops there I go again. I can't phrase it another way - without unintentionally insulting some! Let's drop the whole discussion.
"We can debate till we're blue in the face whether adults should have their baby boys circumcized or not. I really don't want to have that debate. I'm just here to tell boys that whether you're circumcized or not, you're ok. Don't let people tell you that you or you're penis is bad or ugly simply because it has or does not have foreskin. Don't get cocky (pun intended) whether you have a foreskin or not - circumcized boys or not better than uncircumcised boys, and uncircumcised boys are not better than circumcized boys."
It's perfectly fine and normal to have an opinion. I just try to be careful I don't accidentally hurt peoples feelings. Maybe just say I like having my foreskin but I'm sure others like not having theirs. It's similar to me saying I like being a boy who dates girls, but I know there are boys who like dating boys. Nobody is hurt, and your opinion or feeling is still heard. Just my 2 cents. I really think it's important to not hurt other people whether purposefully or not. -
I had heard that one too. There was all kind of nonsense said in the past about masturbation and even the medical profession were in on it. Then there was Kellog and Graham, know respectively for breakfast cereal and crackers which were each supposed to be so bland as to not encourage masturbation - probably as much a load of nonsense then as it is now.
maseb wrote:
And @Sean2001 another reason years ago to circumcise boys was to prevent masturbation. I believe I read that was a much more common reason than hygiene at the time. Maybe the masturbation prevention argument fell out of favor and it was replaced by the hygiene theory. Which I think I can safely say is something so basically simple to teach, like washing your face, that it's a ridiculous reason to perform one. I understand religious reasons based on tradition but that doesn't mean I agree wholeheartedly with them.
Then if circumcision was supposed to stop masturbation it has been failure. It may make it a little harder for some but circumcised guys clearly still do it and still very much enjoy doing it.
But perhaps hospitals/surgeons got used to the money so, when they could no longer justify it as an anti-masturbation measure they had to come up with a new reason to continue and thus continue to be paid. I have already mentioned that most of the world does not do circumcision, at least outside particular religious communities and one of the differences is how healthcare is provided. Certainly, in the UK, doing it would be a cost to the healthcare provider whereas in the USA they would be making a profit.
There is a always a risk when discussing circumcision. Much of what I have said has been along the lines that, at best, it serves no useful purpose that could not be served better some other way. Some people may not want to hear that. Someone who asks his parents why it was done and is told "because it is cleaner" may be disappointed to learn that washing would be as effective, but I am not going to not say what I believe to the the truth because of that.CooperJ wrote:
...I can't phrase it another way - without unintentionally insulting some!
But, for all that, I am not setting out to offend. As other people have commented, guys whether circumcised or not enjoy masturbation and sex and seem to function just fine. While we can have a debate, in our own lives it is probably best to get the best from what you have. -
This is just ending up in a pointless argument
LOCKED
but anyone who thinks either way about the reasons for it should maybe look at medical reposts on the pros and cons, and who's funding that report
Good Friend
Kinda Romantic 
Ready to Rock 
"If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."
-
Share
-
Similar Threads
