ilovefuzz.com

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 7:58 pm**

Well, you are technically mutilating the kid.

That said, one of my cousins has a 5 year old that she didn't have circumcised, and his dick got infected. Sooooooo. There is a definite hygienic argument to be made, and because of that, I'd definitely be against a ban. It's up to the parents.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 8:02 pm**

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 8:31 pm**

I kinda thought this was going to be a guide to getting dick in san fran. This is that bullshit.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 8:33 pm**

Circumcision absolutely is more sanitary and protects against a wide array of infections and diseases. It's not surprising that the only people who argue against it aren't cut themselves.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 8:36 pm**

SPACERITUAL wrote:I kinda thought this was going to be a guide to getting dick in san fran. This is tha bullshit.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 8:49 pm**

plhogan wrote:Circumcision absolutely is more sanitary and protects against a wide array of infections and diseases. It's not surprising that the only people who argue against it aren't cut themselves.

don't forget how it looks more appealing and allegedly it desensitizes the tip so you can last longer

I think it's the whole fallacy of natural=better which has already been thoroughly disproven by makeup and mdma :idk:

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 9:27 pm**

plhogan wrote:Circumcision absolutely is more sanitary and protects against a wide array of infections and diseases. It's not surprising that the only people who argue against it aren't cut themselves.

Way to miss the point. What other part of a child's body are you allowed to cut off? You want to do it to yourself fine. You want to get a pierced scrotum, fine. You want to change the shape of your nose, fine.
You shouldn't do anything irreversible to a child. You can't tattoo a kid. I don't think you should pierce kids' ears either. Let them make up their minds when they're old enough. Don't go hacking bits off their body you can't stick em back on later. As for hygiene ... we invented soap a long time ago

If it wasn't religious-based, you'd never be allowed to do it.

NSFW: show

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 9:40 pm**

devnulljp wrote:
plhogan wrote:Circumcision absolutely is more sanitary and protects against a wide array of infections and diseases. It's not surprising that the only people who argue against it aren't cut themselves.
Way to miss the point. What other part of a child's body are you allowed to cut off? You want to do it to yourself fine. You want to get a pierced scrotum, fine. You want to change the shape of your nose, fine.
You shouldn't do anything irreversible to a child. You can't tattoo a kid. I don't think you should pierce kids' ears either. Let them make up their minds when they're old enough. Don't go hacking bits off their body you can't stick em back on later. As for hygiene ... we invented soap a long time ago

If it wasn't religious-based, you'd never be allowed to do it.

NSFW: show

As much as no one wants to admit it, it really is about not getting teased in the showers when you're 12. But you know what, I can't imagine anything more fucking scarring and traumatic to have your dick made fun of when you're 12. I remember the 2 kids in my class who got made fun of for that, and they got it bad. I've never in my life wished my parents had left me "intact". Because then there would have been 3 kids getting fucking made fun of, and I would have been one of them.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 9:45 pm**

^I never showered with other dudes after PE (unfortunately), but I've never wished I was circumcised either. Nor have I ever met someone who wished they weren't. I'm sure they're out there.

I get the argument. It is a little weird cut something off a kid... I just don't think it's a big deal. :shrug:

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 10:15 pm**

Wut's up with little boys showering together?

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 10:17 pm**

I'm not that old, I'm only 31. Maybe they did away with it sometime in the 90's. Because when I was in middle school, showering after gym class was mandatory. Boys had gang showers, and girls got their own stalls. (how's that for equality?)

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 10:21 pm**

I meant more where can I get in on it...
:lol:

But really, I don't think the showers in our locker room even worked.

Posted: **Thu May 19, 2011 10:47 pm**

devnulljp wrote:
plhogan wrote:Circumcision absolutely is more sanitary and protects against a wide array of infections and diseases. It's not surprising that the only people who argue against it aren't cut themselves.
Way to miss the point. What other part of a child's body are you allowed to cut off? You want to do it to yourself fine. You want to get a pierced scrotum, fine. You want to change the shape of your nose, fine.
You shouldn't do anything irreversible to a child. You can't tattoo a kid. I don't think you should pierce kids' ears either. Let them make up their minds when they're old enough. Don't go hacking bits off their body you can't stick em back on later. As for hygiene ... we invented soap a long time ago

If it wasn't religious-based, you'd never be allowed to do it.

NSFW: show

What are you talking about? You absolutely can tattoo a child, you can pierce their ears (you thinking people shouldnt is irrelevant), and just because something has a religious basis doesnt make it inherently wrong or evil.

There are legitimate medical and social reasons for circumcision, and it pretty much has to be done at birth as it's exceptionally painful to do it while older. How about banning tonsilectomys? Why remove a completely "natural" tumor? Or fix a cleft palate?

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2011 12:08 am**

plhogan wrote:What are you talking about? You absolutely can tattoo a child

Don't think so. Not around anywhere I've ever lived anyway -- except maybe in the hill tribes around the Golden Triangle. I would have thought they'd have to be at least 16 for permanent tattoos.

plhogan wrote:you can pierce their ears (you thinking people shouldnt is irrelevant)

I know that, I don't think you should is all.(me thinking people shouldn't is not irrelevant to my opinion

)

plhogan wrote:and just because something has a religious basis doesnt make it inherently wrong or evil.

Didn't say it does. What it does do is make it unnecessarily difficult to have a rational conversation about it though.
Scenario#1
Derpmom: My Little girl is vomiting blood.
Ordinaryperson: Well, take her to the hospital!
Derpmom: No. I don't like doctors.
Ordinaryperson: You're a fuckhead. I'm calling child services.
--Derpmom gets cited for endangerment. Child goes to hospital. Child lives.

Scenario#2
Derpmom: My Little girl is vomiting blood.
Ordinaryperson: Well, take her to the doctor.
Derpmom: No, it's against my religion.
Ordinaryperson: Oh, I so respect your right to practice your faith. Have a nice day.
--Derpmom prays. Child dies. Oh well.

(Alternatively, as happened here a few years ago, child services overrules the parent, snatches child, gets child medical attention it needs. Child lives. Derpmom sues city for violating her religious freedom :facepalm:

)

plhogan wrote:There are legitimate medical and social reasons for circumcision, and it pretty much has to be done at birth as it's exceptionally painful to do it while older.

I bet it's still pretty painful to do it to a baby. They're just too young to tell you about it. Again, medical reasons, not really in most cases if you have access to soap and water. I can totally see why if you want a population of ignorant desert-dwelling savages to stay healthy it might be a good idea to pretend the creator of the universe forgot to snip off that little bit of flesh so they should go ahead and do it so they don't all get gangrene and die because they're too stupid or there's not enough water to wash. Same with telling them not to eat roadkill that might have died of anthrax.
It is weird though to go hacking bits off babies for your social customs.

There are legitimate social reasons to gouge out your daughter's clitoris and sew her vagina shut too BTW depending on where you live (she'll never get married otherwise, and you won't have any grandkids if you're in Somalia for example -- unless of course she gets gang raped by marauders). Doesn't make it any less of a barbaric custom.

plhogan wrote:How about banning tonsilectomys? Why remove a completely "natural" tumor? Or fix a cleft palate?

False equivalent much? Does anyone cut out a tonsil for social reasons? Tumors and cleft palate are pathologies. Few children are going to die because they have a foreskin. I don't see your point.

Just out of interest, if it wasn't a religiously mandated custom, would you let an old man cut a bit off your kid's weenie and then suck the blood off? Would anybody?

Anyway. Dicks
Bad Dick

Good Dick

Posted: **Fri May 20, 2011 2:04 am**

So I take it, as always, the only people railing against it are uncut themselves?

And fine, I'll throw every argument out the window and just admit that I love my pretty cock. I've heard "statuesque" a lot. Michelangelo's David might not be to scale but he's definitely cut.

(also, are these the kinds of debates that everyone thinks are "tearing apart" ILF? Cause I think devnull and maz are cool dudes and I only have more respect for someone once I hear what they have to say).

ilovefuzz.com

HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN

Re: HEY ILF LETS TALK ABOUT DICKS and SAN FRAN