Forceful circumcision in Mbale: Police fire teargas

He said that so far they have received two cases where the victims had been circumcised badly putting lives in danger.

This obviously can't be true because feminists keep insisting that men of any age, boys and baby boys have a delightful time while having their genitals mutilated whether it be in western culture or developing countries while only women & girls have a horrific time in which their health is at risk.

Feminists keep saying it, so it simply must be true.

No offense Marx, but sometimes your sarcasm makes a guy wanna puke - it sounds so much like the feminist propaganda. Keeps the reminder of what feminists are.

Queen

Inquest hears 28-day-old tot lost three-quarters of his total blood volume

Rabbi Cohen was entirely blameless for the tragedy.

Absolutely wrong... He sexually mutilated a baby who obviously couldn't consent. This mutilation resulted in the death of the baby.

Hey Karl, your excellent compilation of research factors into this.

Nearly 70 Zimbabwean MPs to undergo circumcision as part of huge anti-HIV drive

http://antimisandry.com/articles/uk-...#axzz1ypdpOniw

Listen dudes I'm all for the men's rights movement but I'm not going to exchange feminist busybodies with masculinist busybodies.

Circumcised men "can't express their feelings", "prematurely ejaculate", and "can't satisfy women"?? Are you kidding me right now? How is that any different from the male shaming language that feminists use?

I was circumcised as a baby and am grateful for it... and you can keep your "telling me what's best for me" routine to yourself.

The decision belongs to parents... NOT YOU!!

Stick to the real issues of VAWA and the discrimination in the Family Courts. Your "ban circumcision" position is only going to cost you allies and create opponents unnecessarily... myself among them.

Quote from TheCapitalist

Listen dudes I'm all for the men's rights movement but I'm not going to exchange feminist busybodies with masculinist busybodies.

Circumcised men "can't express their feelings", "prematurely ejaculate", and "can't satisfy women"?? Are you kidding me right now? How is that any different from the male shaming language that feminists use?

I was circumcised as a baby and am grateful for it... and you can keep your "telling me what's best for me" routine to yourself.

The decision belongs to parents... NOT YOU!!

Stick to the real issues of VAWA and the discrimination in the Family Courts. Your "ban circumcision" position is only going to cost you allies and create opponents unnecessarily... myself among them.

Wrong, my friend.The decision doesn't belong to the parents.The decision belongs to the individual getting circumcised.If an adult wants to be cut, so be it....but it's wrong to force an irreversible and unnecessary medical procedure on a child.Children are not property that one can do whatever they please with.

Quote from Afternever

Wrong, my friend.The decision doesn't belong to the parents.The decision belongs to the individual getting circumcised.If an adult wants to be cut, so be it....but it's wrong to force an irreversible and unnecessary medical procedure on a child.Children are not property that one can do whatever they please with.

And yet we have parents who DO force their sons and daughters to undergo circumcisions. And if they don't do anything that disturbing, there's always the parents who pierce infant ears, make their kids get tattoos, etc.

Perhaps just as bad as circumcision (or maybe worse, in a way) are those parents who have a hermaphrodite infant and assign the gender themselves. From the stories I've read, they usually choose quite incorrectly...I actually was a good acquaintance of someone who went through this. She was torn because she was attracted to girls but was from a VERY Christian family. In 11th grade her family finally told her she was born as a hermaphrodite and had her (unfunctional) micropenis sculpted into a clitoris to match her more defined vagina/labia. Gods, was she shocked!

Point being...let the children decide what they want done to them!

Quote from Traveler

Point being...let the children decide what they want done to them!

Indeed, boy and girl, as with the right to vote, smoke, drink and have sex, requires an age of consent. Why should something as extreme as circumcision be any different?

If there's rightfully moral outrage at girls being circumcised, then this concept must extend to boys also, or let those who propound 'equality' be shown for the hypocrites they are.

Quote from TheCapitalist

Listen dudes I'm all for the men's rights movement but I'm not going to exchange feminist busybodies with masculinist busybodies.

Those 'quotes' you used have not been said by anyone in this thread. If you're going to use quotation marks, at least put a quote between them instead of making up your own quote and implying they've spoken by someone else. Deceit is for feminists, not men.

Quote from TheCapitalist

Circumcised men "can't express their feelings", "prematurely ejaculate", and "can't satisfy women"?? Are you kidding me right now? How is that any different from the male shaming language that feminists use?

Such phrases as you quote are just those used by feminists in their shaming language. When you find people saying such things, call them out on it. (You can see that it is not being said here.)

Quote from TheCapitalist

I was circumcised as a baby and am grateful for it... and you can keep your "telling me what's best for me" routine to yourself.

The decision belongs to parents... NOT YOU!!

If parents decided on some other pointless operation that they might consider they want performed - say, to remove a baby's ears - would that also be right? After all, the ears don't do much and could be removed without harm. How much of a baby is it acceptable to have removed or altered for no medical reason? Try to separate from your own culture when thinking that question through.

Other examples of child alteration: Which of these is acceptable and why? Foot Binding Infant oral mutilation (Female) Circumcision

Why should decisions like this belong to parents? They obviously don't belong to whoever you were addressing either, so why should such decisions not belong to YOU, the person being affected? If you want to remove your foreskin, your ears, your toenails or any other part of you that you can get by without, is this not YOUR decision to make and YOURS ALONE?

That you are grateful for what was done to you has no bearing on the issue of whether the choice generally should be the person's own. If your parents had left you intact you could still have had your foreskin removed at a later time in accordance with your own wishes.

Quote from TheCapitalist

Your "ban circumcision" position is only going to cost you allies and create opponents unnecessarily... myself among them.

There is no '"ban circumcision" position' being espoused. If a person wants to be circumcised (and is able to make that choice freely) then no-one that I've read or heard of in the MRA says they should not be allowed to do it.

I repeat .. there is no concept of banning circumcision. For males or females.

There is the matter of a man's body belonging to himself and - as with females - him being legally protected until he is considered able to make that decision for himself.

Can you cite the UN policy that is pro Genital Mutilation for males?

I remember there was a psuedo-scientific study that claimed circumcision prevented AIDS. Many REAL scientists (that is people that stick to the scientific method) and doctors have denounced the study for being unscientific. One douche bag somehow got his book endorsed by NPR called "Tinderbox", where he made outlandish claims that the circumcised man can't get or spread AIDS. He blamed the foreskin. 'Tinderbox': How The West Fueled The AIDS Epidemic : NPR

========Tinderbox============
The Douchebag's name is Craig Timberg, a circumcised Zionist Jew (circumcision is also a Jewish practice, he is trying to support himself being circumcised).
Go to his website
Tinderbox
Check in periodically for he sometimes travels and posts up locations. If he comes to your town, find a way to boo him out.

=======About the so-called study==============
It is not SCIENTIFIC at all, because the study was conducted with a small sample size, within a small time sample (1 year), and all of them were grown men. Many scientist have pointed out that no conclusion could be made from that kind of dataset.

Also, It took the men that were circumsized up to 6 months to recover from the mutilation, which isn't addressed. The implications of that is the men with genital mutilation had REDUCED events of sexual intercourse compared to their un-mutilated counterparts). The so-called "study" tries to get around this fact by saying they asked the men if it has affected their sex life and only "a few" said "yes", but "most" said "no". This isn't science.

They also gloss over the fact that many men have to deal with oversensitivity and the reduced desire for sex. Again, they attempt to address this with a questionnaire, which is sociology not science (sociology is a JOKE in science circles). If anything men that had sex issues will not admit that! Men and their sexual 'performance' is intimately tied to their state of manhood. Therefore the sociology factor in all this is that these men will say they are stallions in bed no matter the circumstance (no pun intended). Only uncircumsized males can understand the sensitivity of having their penis head exposed and subject to rubbing on the clothes and and so on, circumcised men have lost sensitivity and formed calluses and scaring on the penis head from overexposure. A woman can understand this feeling if they just expose their clitoris and feel the abrasiveness of cotton fabric against it. It is VERY UNPLEASANT, after a few months of this you will loose sensitivity.

So in other words, if anything, the test shows that circumcision (i.e. genital mutilation) in adults might have an impact on the frequency of sexual intercourse, thus, reducing chances of getting AIDS. The book and "study" make a completely outlandish, and very dangerous, conclusion (Circumsize men and they will be immune to AIDS and thus will save WOMEN from AIDS exposure) when this is not true at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Their goal is to genitally mutilate men, at the same time Feminism is working hard and spending federal tax $$ to have the UN band FEMALE circumcision. Hmmm whats going on? Isnt it obvious?

=====The next study======
Nex thing you know, they will be doing a study on cutting the damned Penis off Who cares they are black men, right? Feminists would love it . They will claim it is a victory for women. Of course, we will give the victims a questionnaire on how it has affected their sex life. I'm certain that "a few" will say that it "hasn't affected" their sex life one bit!

Quote from yinyangbalance

Can you cite the UN policy that is pro Genital Mutilation for males?

I remember there was a psuedo-scientific study that claimed circumcision prevented AIDS. Many REAL scientists (that is people that stick to the scientific method) and doctors have denounced the study for being unscientific. One douche bag somehow got his book endorsed by NPR called "Tinderbox", where he made outlandish claims that the circumcised man can't get or spread AIDS. He blamed the foreskin. 'Tinderbox': How The West Fueled The AIDS Epidemic : NPR

Nearly 70 Zimbabwean MPs to undergo circumcision as part of huge anti-HIV drive

A promulgated myth that male circumcision prevented AIDS, began with 3 studies in Africa several years ago. It claimed circumcision was effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). The sample size in studies were small, inherently flawed & stopped before all the results were finalized. The Lancet, refused to publish the male circumcision trials due to ethical concerns. The World Health Organization, heavily focused on gender politics, got hold of this myth (without concerning themselves with peer-review or that it was discredited), & the WHO's HIV/AIDS Department stated unequivocally that circumcision would give a significant "additional benefit" to men trying to avoid HIV infection. A study led by Dr. Maria Wawer at the BloombergSchool of Public health in Baltimore, concluded that circumcising men did not reduce HIV transmission to their female partners (see also Connolly 2008). Conversely, a large study from John Hopkins University, Baltimore, demonstrates that women are more likely to get HIV/AIDS from a circumcised male partner (see also Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).