Forums > Social Chat > something very clever
Login/Join to Participate(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
Posted:
i know a while ago there was a discussion on (now im gonna spell it really wrong!)circumsision(?!)(and yes i see all you boys cringing and cowering in fear! ) but i have just found out something really cool..did you know that scientists can now grow sheets and sheets of skin from the foreskin of a newborn ?!bet ya didnt!and its used to treat the scars of burns victims etc how cool is that!a good reason for circumsision dont you think?!!
i know a while ago there was a discussion on (now im gonna spell it really wrong!)circumsision(?!)(and yes i see all you boys cringing and cowering in fear! ) but i have just found out something really cool..did you know that scientists can now grow sheets and sheets of skin from the foreskin of a newborn ?!bet ya didnt!and its used to treat the scars of burns victims etc how cool is that!a good reason for circumsision dont you think?!!
she who sees from up high smiles
Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*
I don't want a title.
940 posts
940 posts
Posted:
But you have to understand that cutting off the clitorous (this is what is known as female circumcision) is more akin to cutting off the entire penis. Cutting off the clitoral hood would be like cutting off the foreskin, and if that's all they did, then we could compare and discuss. As is, since the Western world does not castrate males in the name of culture, there can be no comparison.
::quietly goes back to work::
[Edited for poor syntax.]
quote:You may be right about male circumcision being wrong - I'd have to read up on medical studies before I could offer an informed opinion.
Originally posted by Psylent_BoB:
It is a bit worrying to me that on the one hand many people are up in arms about female circumcision, which I agree is also wrong, but male circumcision is just brushed aside as something "cultural". Either way you look at it their both mutilation of an unwilling (in most cases) party...
But you have to understand that cutting off the clitorous (this is what is known as female circumcision) is more akin to cutting off the entire penis. Cutting off the clitoral hood would be like cutting off the foreskin, and if that's all they did, then we could compare and discuss. As is, since the Western world does not castrate males in the name of culture, there can be no comparison.
::quietly goes back to work::
[Edited for poor syntax.]
E pluribus unum, baby.
(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
Posted:
SlightlySinged - everything i was gonna say has been very well put by regyt and vanize. sorry matey but you just can compare those to things.
Dentrassi - i should have put that link in at the beginning but it wasnt supposed to end up as a debate about the good and evil of the foreskin. just wanted to include some cool science stuff!
SlightlySinged - everything i was gonna say has been very well put by regyt and vanize. sorry matey but you just can compare those to things.
Dentrassi - i should have put that link in at the beginning but it wasnt supposed to end up as a debate about the good and evil of the foreskin. just wanted to include some cool science stuff!
she who sees from up high smiles
Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
ive notice topics on interesting science stuff usually evolves into big ethics debates....or doesnt evolve at all.
i thought my sciency thread on Ig Nobel Prize was most amusing but only got 1 reply .
besides usually when i post comments on sciency stuff i go way too technical and confuse everyone else. oh well.
back to the debate....
ive notice topics on interesting science stuff usually evolves into big ethics debates....or doesnt evolve at all.
i thought my sciency thread on Ig Nobel Prize was most amusing but only got 1 reply .
besides usually when i post comments on sciency stuff i go way too technical and confuse everyone else. oh well.
back to the debate....
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
That is certainly the case Dentrassi. Every so often one merely becomes metephysical instead of ethical and continues to propagate in that regard.
Getting back to Narr's original post and the fact that we are fire performers - how would you like to end up in the burn ward wraped up in someone's foreskin?
That is certainly the case Dentrassi. Every so often one merely becomes metephysical instead of ethical and continues to propagate in that regard.
Getting back to Narr's original post and the fact that we are fire performers - how would you like to end up in the burn ward wraped up in someone's foreskin?
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
I understand that female circumcision is removing a whole gland, not just giving it a "short back and sides" but even that would leave me significantly less sensitive, and still genital mutilation is genital mutilation. I have read cases of extreme female circumcision where the girl is literally sown up (leaving a small hole for the usual business) to be cut open by her husband on her wedding night.
To me it doesn't matter what bit of whoever is being removed, it's when it's being practiced on children who can't vocalise their opinions / fears / reservations I cannot condone it in any way, shape, or form...
I would like to point out that if someone wants to do this to themselves then I have absolutely no problem with it at all, their adults and can make their own decisions, but children of 5 and under being forced to under go this, doesn't that count as child abuse?
PsyB.
[Edited - damn quote tags ]
[ 22. October 2003, 03:07: Message edited by: Psylent_BoB ]
quote:That is a fair point, for me personally (and trying not to get to graphical) that bit of me old fella is probably the most sensitive and stimulating (that sounds so dodgy!!! ) and I certainly couldn't imagine being without it.
Originally posted by regyt:
But you have to understand that cutting off the clitorous (this is what is known as female circumcision) is more akin to cutting off the entire penis. Cutting off the clitoral hood would be like cutting off the foreskin, and if that's all they did, then we could compare and discuss. As is, since the Western world does not castrate males in the name of culture, there can be no comparison.
I understand that female circumcision is removing a whole gland, not just giving it a "short back and sides" but even that would leave me significantly less sensitive, and still genital mutilation is genital mutilation. I have read cases of extreme female circumcision where the girl is literally sown up (leaving a small hole for the usual business) to be cut open by her husband on her wedding night.
To me it doesn't matter what bit of whoever is being removed, it's when it's being practiced on children who can't vocalise their opinions / fears / reservations I cannot condone it in any way, shape, or form...
I would like to point out that if someone wants to do this to themselves then I have absolutely no problem with it at all, their adults and can make their own decisions, but children of 5 and under being forced to under go this, doesn't that count as child abuse?
PsyB.
[Edited - damn quote tags ]
[ 22. October 2003, 03:07: Message edited by: Psylent_BoB ]
member
18 posts
Location: india
18 posts
Location: india
Posted:
sorry dentrassi,, its nothing but to give pain to a child
live life happily
sorry dentrassi,, its nothing but to give pain to a child
live life happily
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
it's not really a gland (there is a difference beteen the term glans, a type of tissue that swells with increased blood flow, and gland, which secretes some bodily fluid or other) - more like a nerve bundle stylized in form. The clitorous is a wonderous thing in that it exists for no purpose other than to give a woman sexual pleasure, which makes it even more specialized than what us males have.
I do have to agree with PBob to an extent though. I don't think it is child abuse per se (much more than the whole battery of immunizations the por infant must also deal with), but in that it is done unwillfully to the patient for marginal benifits is not quite right. I am not about to question the Jewish religion for continuing to practice it though, and more than I am going to tell Catholics they shouldn't baptize their kids until he/she is old enough to make their own mind up in the matter. It is a significant rite in their religion, and does no long term harm.
it's not really a gland (there is a difference beteen the term glans, a type of tissue that swells with increased blood flow, and gland, which secretes some bodily fluid or other) - more like a nerve bundle stylized in form. The clitorous is a wonderous thing in that it exists for no purpose other than to give a woman sexual pleasure, which makes it even more specialized than what us males have.
I do have to agree with PBob to an extent though. I don't think it is child abuse per se (much more than the whole battery of immunizations the por infant must also deal with), but in that it is done unwillfully to the patient for marginal benifits is not quite right. I am not about to question the Jewish religion for continuing to practice it though, and more than I am going to tell Catholics they shouldn't baptize their kids until he/she is old enough to make their own mind up in the matter. It is a significant rite in their religion, and does no long term harm.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i agree with infant circumcision.
for several reasons.
i can also see that some men may come to resent it as they become adults.
i personally would not make the decision for my child unless i become an orthodox jew in which case i would insist that the rabbi performing the ceremony was medically trained (as many are i might add).
however, you might want to disregard my views as i also agree with docking the tails and clipping the dew claws of working dogs when they are puppies.
it's illegal in the uk now
[ 22. October 2003, 03:25: Message edited by: coleman ]
i agree with infant circumcision.
for several reasons.
i can also see that some men may come to resent it as they become adults.
i personally would not make the decision for my child unless i become an orthodox jew in which case i would insist that the rabbi performing the ceremony was medically trained (as many are i might add).
however, you might want to disregard my views as i also agree with docking the tails and clipping the dew claws of working dogs when they are puppies.
it's illegal in the uk now
[ 22. October 2003, 03:25: Message edited by: coleman ]
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
member
192 posts
Location: oxford
192 posts
Location: oxford
Posted:
i'd personaly say if it was there at the begining, its there for a reason... putting the personal view here, so don't think i'm having a go either way, but from a personal view, i'd prefer to have the end of my penis there. the hygene thing is just rubbish, as anyone not washing properly and paying attention is going to get debris going on regardless of their foreskin being there or not.
simply out of interest, and with obviously no discriminations either way, but what do the women/ bi gay guys of the board prefer? does it matter? can you tell the difference? would it stop (or start) you getting down to business once you find out the guys lacking in the end of his judgement stick?
i'd personaly say if it was there at the begining, its there for a reason... putting the personal view here, so don't think i'm having a go either way, but from a personal view, i'd prefer to have the end of my penis there. the hygene thing is just rubbish, as anyone not washing properly and paying attention is going to get debris going on regardless of their foreskin being there or not.
simply out of interest, and with obviously no discriminations either way, but what do the women/ bi gay guys of the board prefer? does it matter? can you tell the difference? would it stop (or start) you getting down to business once you find out the guys lacking in the end of his judgement stick?
GOLD Member
member
82 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
member
82 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Okay, okay, clitoris/foreskin comparison was a tad extreme. But I think you got my point. Pick something smaller then. Pick ANY thing, ANY part of a female child's body. If there was some benefit to medical science by lopping it off, would you do it to your child?
Okay, okay, clitoris/foreskin comparison was a tad extreme. But I think you got my point. Pick something smaller then. Pick ANY thing, ANY part of a female child's body. If there was some benefit to medical science by lopping it off, would you do it to your child?
I do poi nearly every day. But it's not like I'm addicted or anything. I mean, sure, I am always conscious of exactly where my poi are at all times, but I'm not obsessed. um.. Anyone have the number for Poi-ers Anon?
SILVER Member
member
23 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
member
23 posts
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posted:
Let the new born baby decided...it is his foreskin afterall.
Let the new born baby decided...it is his foreskin afterall.
If you talk you can sing. If you walk you can dance.
(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
Posted:
funkymonkey - im not sure we can go into that kind of thing on this board
slightlysinged - i cant think of a part of the female body that isnt necessary.
*sees huge amount of men getting enraged by that comment!* - - but there are an equal amount that find life without it equally pleasurable.
i think the reason the foreskin was chosen was because alot of boys are circumsised and its a way of getting stem cells without using dead fetuses or growing embryos specifically for that purpose, which im sure all of you will agree would be completely unethical!
but i think i have an idea that may solve this whole thing ... why have they not used the appendix?!! its a completely useless organ!!?!
funkymonkey - im not sure we can go into that kind of thing on this board
slightlysinged - i cant think of a part of the female body that isnt necessary.
*sees huge amount of men getting enraged by that comment!* - - but there are an equal amount that find life without it equally pleasurable.
i think the reason the foreskin was chosen was because alot of boys are circumsised and its a way of getting stem cells without using dead fetuses or growing embryos specifically for that purpose, which im sure all of you will agree would be completely unethical!
but i think i have an idea that may solve this whole thing ... why have they not used the appendix?!! its a completely useless organ!!?!
she who sees from up high smiles
Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
narr & funky,
we have gone into that kind of detail before - this discussion is pretty tame compared to the last one.
in response to the question, heres the my post from the last time we debated the topic. its the seventh post down the page. theres also various other comments on the issue.
we do go into quite a bit of detail here so if your not comfortable with that id advise to give it a miss.
link to my post in last circumscision debate
id advise reading the entire thread if you find this current topic interesting.
narr & funky,
we have gone into that kind of detail before - this discussion is pretty tame compared to the last one.
in response to the question, heres the my post from the last time we debated the topic. its the seventh post down the page. theres also various other comments on the issue.
we do go into quite a bit of detail here so if your not comfortable with that id advise to give it a miss.
link to my post in last circumscision debate
id advise reading the entire thread if you find this current topic interesting.
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
i don't reckon many new parents would be up for that!
quote:removing the appendix at birth would involve invasive surgery on a newborn...
Originally posted by Narr:
but i think i have an idea that may solve this whole thing ... why have they not used the appendix?!! its a completely useless organ!!?!
i don't reckon many new parents would be up for that!
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
(*) (*) .. for the gnor ;)
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
2,568 posts
Location: sitting on the step
Posted:
hmmm, true!
hmmm, true!
she who sees from up high smiles
Patrick badger king: *they better hope there's never a jihad on stupidity*
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com