Sunday, 19 June 2011

Cut or Uncut?




All cock is good cock - right?
Well the debate is kicking off as to whether or not parents have the right to deny their male offspring of their foreskins.
That once fashionable snip is now increasingly being seen as a denial of a guy's human right to enter the world with his body intact and un-mutilated by cultural, religious, or parental preference.
For centuries, cock-clippin'-clerics have been lording it over their followers penises whether the victims wanted it or not. But now the guys are fighting back, and asking the question of their prick-pinching-parents 'what the fuck do you think you were doing?!' (or words to that effect).
I'm with them on that. I love cocks, cut or uncut, but I reckon it should be a man's own choice.
And to the religions who demand it - are you really saying you can improve on your god's own work?!
I dont think so - its more likely you just want to get your hands in your congregations pants, marking your fellas for life, and reminding them who's boss every time they whip out their dick.
At least in Second Life foreskin is a matter of choice.. and you can chop (if you'll pardon the expression) or change as you see fit. The bad news is that I've yet to see an uncut dick in Second Life that looks as realistic or quite as tasty as a real life hoodie!
Which side are you hanging on the subject?

15 comments:

  1. I am with you all the way on this, Torro!

    It should be the man´s own choice whether or not he should get his foreskin snipped or not.

    I do not mind cut dicks per se at all, but I would have hated to have my own taken away. It´s there for a reason and it has always been good to me... ;)

    I always thought this excessive spitting in hands one see´s in American gay porn movies or the tremendous use of lube was such a waste, leave the foreskin on and there is a natural lubricant. (Well you still do need lube for anal penetration but not for masturbation.)

    Admittedly there are cases where the foreskin is too tight - and then the procedure should of course be used - but the current mass-mutilation of baby boys going on for societal or religious reasons is awful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. People who are against a total circumcision ban point to the clear and insurmountable evidence pointing to the health benefits of circumcision, especially for men in third world countries.

    There is clear evidence that in terms of preventing penile cancer (which is a huge problem in Africa), HIV, and male-to-female HIV transfer, circumcision is clearly beneficial. The proposed mechanism is that circumcision removes what are called Langerhans cells in the foreskin, which are more susceptible to HIV infection. Langerhans cells are equipped with special receptors that may allow HIV access into the body.

    Three studies published in 2009 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews revealed that circumcised men were 54 percent less likely to get HIV than uncircumcised men. The trials included more than 11,000 men in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya between 2002 and 2006. Any search of the internet will show studies that point to the same.

    Penile cancer is increasing in the United States as the incidence of circumcision is decreasing. It is important to read about your health risks here if you are uncircumcized: http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update1205d.shtml

    In addition, banning circumcision will not stop it. Circumcision is an extremely important part of several religions, including Judaism, Islam, and several old Christian denominations in Africa, including Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Churches. I think it is interesting btw that the Churches will require it are in countries which need the health benefit of circumcision the most.

    If you ban it, like they did in the former Soviet Union (medical circumcisions were banned under communism and also in Nazi Germany), you will not stop it. You will drive it underground and probably make it more popular as an action against governmental interference in what is scene as a personal family decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Lies, damned lies, and statistics", you are using statistics to bolster weak arguments. I could cite a lot of numbers to, but will not do that. Anyone can google and find the websites.

    My position is basically a Human Rights one and can be boiled down to this.

    Leave the children's bodies alone, both boys and girls. Teach them healthy routines to clean up their genitals on a daily basis.

    ...all the rest is religion and culture screwing up with nature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here are some organizations that are endorsing the health benefits of circumcision. They all use medical evidence to back up their claims of significant health benefits especially in HIV/AIDS prevention.

    Bock is correct, if you surf the web you can find references claiming that there are no, or harmful benefits of circumcision. However, I think there is a strong if not irrefutable case that circumcision has a strong role in preventing the incidence of AIDS in third world countries.

    Please see the U.N. report. I think this is the most powerful.

    There are many other organizations recommending circumcision as a key way to stop the horrible onslaught of AIDS. I do not have time to find all of them. But unless you think that all these organizations have a vested interest in removing foreskins, I do not think that you can claim they are deliberately spreading lies about this.

    Heath Benefits of Circumcision
    United States Center of Disease Control and Prevention:
    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

    World Health Organization: (The United Nations)
    http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html

    United Nations Program on AIDS:
    http://data.unaids.org/pub/Manual/2007/070613_humanrightsethicallegalguidance_en.pdf

    Mayo Clinic:
    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/MY01023/DSECTION=why-its-done

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guys, what did I start! But its a great thing to see, and read, so thanks a million for the input.
    I'm re-assessing by the minute, but i think there are several issues that get jumbled together here.

    1. Is it right, in a modern, secular society, that you grow up to discover that your parents pre-determined your cut/uncut status without your consent (whether their grounds for doing so were religious,
    cultural, or aesthetic)?

    In doing so, they assume an attitude of 'ownership' of the child, and make a decision, the consequences of which the child then has to live
    with, and may regret.

    I'd say, in a modern, wealthy society, where personal freedom plays an increasingly important part in our expectation, it probably is difficult to justify.

    If a particular religious/cultural belief was central to my life
    i would probably have been led to believe that it was my duty to bring up the child in the the ways of that culture - but this would deny the child the right to choose that culture for himself, and would impose both circumcision and a religion upon him without his consent. Also probably wrong.

    2. Does the discovery that circumcision protects people from the HIV/AIDS virus (by up to 60% less likelihood of infection) mean that circumcision is a good thing?
    Well, it certainly means its a really important thing to consider. But would it stop me, or my son (if I had one), from contracting the virus?
    Not unless I followed all the other advice that went along with it (like use a condom/practice safe sex)- long term it wouldn't - I may just feel over confident and carry on as if I had immunity.

    I'm not trying to undermine your arguments here Eddi, not by any means, because I'm talking in abstract terms, and as we know, its not like that at all.
    Circumcision could be a great tool in the armament against HIV in Africa, and the rest of the World, but that is a big decision, and if we tell Africa to do it, we should all be prepared to do it.

    You guys really got me thinking, and though my blog feature was maybe slightly casual about a serious subject it is a big topic to consider, but also one that crosses both intimate personal/emotional/sexual issues for guys, and huge cultural/religious and maybe more importantly pandemic global health.

    Thanks again guys for responding, and lets keep talking.

    Torro.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frankly...I don't want to see my government spending my tax dollars police-ing this...seriously there is any number of better things those dollars can go for like ..ohh I don't know...how about AIDS meds for underprivileged HIV+ patients since they have found that HIV+ patients that start meds early reduce transmission rate by 96%..seriously is this what we need our limited government funds spent on..or are you saying we should increase our taxes to police this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. An intelligent discussion of the pros and negatives of circumcision is important is what is important.

    In the United States, this is now on the ballot in the City of San Francisco for November as a referendum -- and is being watched around the U.S. for results.

    As I point out in my blog, the person who is responsible for putting this as an initiative on the ballot in San Francisco has published a very controversial comic that most people assume has destroyed any chance for this referendum for passing. An anti-circumcision initiative in Santa Monica California has been withdrawn because Mr. Matthew Hess, the person who is heading up the initiative, is being seen as having some very controversial personal views.

    My guess is that this argument for now will remain a hypothetical one in the United Sates. I am not sure about Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My understanding is that circumcision is no longer practiced in most Western or Asian Countries, with the notable exception of the USA.

    In Australia it has not been widely practiced for decades, although the procedure may be sought on religious or medical grounds. The incidence has fallen to a small minority of boys having the procedure.

    This has largely been led by the Medical Profession itself, as it was concluded that risks to new born infants vastly out-weighed the potential benefits. In terms of cost to the State, it should be remembered that what is being proposed should actually lead to cost-savings, not additional spedning.

    Advocacy for circumcision as a preventitive measure for HIV/AIDS needs to be seen in the context that Africa is experiencing a Pandemic, infection rates remain apallingly high and access to affordable medications remains a problem. There is a counter argument that the benefits of circumcision are being considerably over-sold and this strategy is not - to my knowledge - being pursued in any other Western country. It is certainly NOT a substitute for Safe Sex.

    I personally know many men angry that the decision was taken from them and several of those people have made numerous (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to 'restore' their foreskins.

    While I respect the right of anyone to honor their religious beliefs, my personal philosophy is that circumcision - along with any other permanent change to the body - should only be performed with the informed consent of the person it is being done to.

    From what has been said about the debate regarding the San Francisco initiative, it strikes me as more than unfortunate that this issue has been associated with political fringe-dwellers.

    Disclosure: sarco was not circumcised after his mother vigorously defended him from what was - at the time - routinely performed on all male babies.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hope everyone who reads this and knows me realizes that I do not have an issue with anyone promoting a circumcision (or genital mutilation) ban. All of you who think this way here clearly are not prejudiced against any group, and have a legitimate and real concern about the welfare of children. You have every right to express your opinion and lobby for this. And you can point to facts being on your side too.

    My only problem is with legislating this, I feel this should be a matter of family choice, and want everyone to know the enormous pain any ban will have on certain groups who have practiced this for thousands of years. And just as you guys like your foreskin, please accept that many circumcised people like myself like the way are too! My guess is that the majority of us feel this way. However, as I have said, since I can't grow mine back I cannot compare. And I like, perhaps even prefer, guys with foreskins (lets not go there). They can be lots of fun to play with!

    I do have one funny story to tell. A publisher who I was representing in Advertising Sales, someone quite conservative on the surface, called me and asked me if I had any copies of Inches magazine to spare. I said "Charles (his real name), you you coming out of the closet? I am shocked!"

    He said no Eddi, his daughter (who used to housesit for me in San Francisco) was expecting his first grandchild, a boy. And that all she is talking about with her husband was a decision on whether or not he would be circumcised. He said they were talking about it at the last family dinner, and he was getting sick from hearing about it.So he wanted some copies of Inches to pull out and say "Let's see some examples to compare!". He thought that would shut everyone up.

    I lent him some copies of Inches and Latin Inches (my favorite), and he returned them to me a few weeks later saying that they did the trick.

    This is my last comment, and thanks to eveyrone for such a great discussion!

    http://www.studemags.com/lusty-library/gay-magazines/Latin-Inches-Magazine.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Please allow me to make a historical perspective in this discussion. It is based on Swedish history, but should be applicable to most countries in the world.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden to own slaves, and the owner had the right to treat his property as he/she saw fit including to mistreat, abuse or even kill them.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for the nobility to rape, pillage and burn as they saw fit and proper on their own lands.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for the family or kinsfolk of any murdered man to kill any another male member of the murderers family or kinsfolk.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for a husband to abuse and rape his wife.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for an employer to abuse the laborers in his employment.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for teachers to abuse pupils in their custody.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for parents to abuse their children as a means of upbringing.

    It used to be a legal right and a socially acceptable custom in Sweden for an owner of animals to treat his animals in any way he saw fit.

    The list can be prolonged, but I think I have made my point.

    Legal attitudes, cultural customs and social traditions can be changed.

    Should we do away with all the restrictions we have put in place through history to save a tax-dollar?

    Society evolves and the laws and social conventions are changed. What was once considered normal practice gets outlawed - usually with some fuss on the breakdown of society and the infringement on the individuals god-given rights to so as he has always been allowed to do before.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey take a look! I promised no more comments but this same issue and a poll made the top gay blog in the United States today.


    http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/06/survey-most-oppose-san-franciscos.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. O.M.G. Joe Jervis of J.M.G. reads MY blog???

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yes to look at that hot body of yours Bock. who doesn't?

    ReplyDelete