Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

levite · 05-31-2009, 10:38 PM

Well, as an observant Jew, obviously I'm happy to be circumcised, and certainly plan to circumcise any sons I might be blessed with in the future. But those are for reasons that have nothing to do with health or sexual fitness or aesthetics.

That said, I have never had any desire to not be circumcised, and have always been pleased by my state over and above the religious reasons. I saw my first uncircumcised penis in junior high, in the locker room, after I transferred from Jewish day school to public school. It scared me out of a year's growth. I thought the guy had some kind of weird disease. Obviously, I know better now, but I have to say that I find uncircumcised penises to be extremely aesthetically displeasing to me. I mean, let's face it, dicks are really not decorative units as it goes, no matter what kind they are, but uncircumcised johnsons just are not...streamlined. They seem to range from looking vaguely sluglike to looking like they just sneezed and have a booger hanging down, and when hard they seem to mostly look like they're kind of activated while still in the package.

I'm not going to say anyone should be forced to circumcise their sons or themselves. But I definitely think that nobody should be prevented from circumcising their sons or themselves.

And I definitely don't think it's genital mutilation. Genital modification, maybe. But mutilation, to me at least, implies a modification of the body which is actively unhealthful or hazardous, is deliberately painful or uncomfortable or unpleasant for the person to whom it was done, and has negative effects on the proper functioning and performance of the body parts in question. And one might argue that the health benefits of circumcision are slight enough not to be worth it; or that the aesthetics are displeasing to one; or that it is simply unnecessary (except where religion is concerned); but there is simply no evidence that it decreases sensitivity or impairs sexual or urinary function, nor is it painful or uncomfortable after it heals. Therefore, I can understand calling it genital modification, but not genital mutilation.

05-31-2009, 10:38 PM	#27 (permalink)
levite Minion of Joss Location: The Windy City	Well, as an observant Jew, obviously I'm happy to be circumcised, and certainly plan to circumcise any sons I might be blessed with in the future. But those are for reasons that have nothing to do with health or sexual fitness or aesthetics. That said, I have never had any desire to not be circumcised, and have always been pleased by my state over and above the religious reasons. I saw my first uncircumcised penis in junior high, in the locker room, after I transferred from Jewish day school to public school. It scared me out of a year's growth. I thought the guy had some kind of weird disease. Obviously, I know better now, but I have to say that I find uncircumcised penises to be extremely aesthetically displeasing to me. I mean, let's face it, dicks are really not decorative units as it goes, no matter what kind they are, but uncircumcised johnsons just are not...streamlined. They seem to range from looking vaguely sluglike to looking like they just sneezed and have a booger hanging down, and when hard they seem to mostly look like they're kind of activated while still in the package. I'm not going to say anyone should be forced to circumcise their sons or themselves. But I definitely think that nobody should be prevented from circumcising their sons or themselves. And I definitely don't think it's genital mutilation. Genital modification, maybe. But mutilation, to me at least, implies a modification of the body which is actively unhealthful or hazardous, is deliberately painful or uncomfortable or unpleasant for the person to whom it was done, and has negative effects on the proper functioning and performance of the body parts in question. And one might argue that the health benefits of circumcision are slight enough not to be worth it; or that the aesthetics are displeasing to one; or that it is simply unnecessary (except where religion is concerned); but there is simply no evidence that it decreases sensitivity or impairs sexual or urinary function, nor is it painful or uncomfortable after it heals. Therefore, I can understand calling it genital modification, but not genital mutilation. __________________ Dull sublunary lovers love, Whose soul is sense, cannot admit Absence, because it doth remove That thing which elemented it. (From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)