RE: A cutting question ?

RE: A cutting question ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aneirin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 11:19:27 AM)
quote: I don't get this at all knowing you the way I do A. Your constantly searching, which is cool, so why don't you take the time to learn the translations and original language instead of asking second hand accounts that you cannot confirm are correct or not? Why passively shrug off that you 'don't know so can't know' and learn instead? You like learning, so I know for a fact you could do it. the.dark. Simply because I have a definate inability to learn foreign or archaic languages, and believe me, I have tried, I have always wanted to be useful in a language other than my own as a mark of respect to others who have to learn my language. I have to date tried to learn French, German,Danish, Swedish, Welsh, Arabic, Portugeuse and Spanish. Of others purely for interest, these include Elvish, Theban and Enochian script, (recently, I even stopped myself for thinking to learn Sanskrit for my yoga practice), but the same problem happens with every language I try, I break into confusion and start crossing words of different language in normal English speech, so I gave up trying to learn, as many find my speech difficult enough at times, well, not so much now, but a few years back. I asked my question here to hopefully receive some ideas, some directions that might interest for me, myself to pursue further, or if it was known, the actual answer to my question.

MistresseLotus -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 2:29:49 PM)
... could have been all about the smegma

Gwynvyd -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 2:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan According to Wiki, earliest references depicting male circumcision (we should get onto female circumcision later on) have been observed in cave drawings and Egyptian tombs but states that they're ambiguous. My own personal recollection of circumcision dates back to Judaism and is embodied in the Tanakh (someone correct me if I am wrong). Whatever its roots, it is affiliated with many religions and thankfully, today at least, parents in the US (considerably fewer men in the UK are circumcised) are given the choice. You may consider it mutilation and that it violates a basic human right, but you cannot denigrate people for practising their religions, for they existed long before you were given life, and will prevail long after you exit this world. This is a very timely thread. My Thesis is on Female Genital Mutiation (FGM). I have to do an expository thesis... so it bites. I wanted to do one on the cultural, and religious signifigance of FGM and how the West does not understand it's context in relation to our own society. Now all I can do it on is what is FGM, what cultures and religions is it practiced in. Personally when I had my son I outright refused to have him circumcised. He got what God gave him. If he wants to have it lopped off at a later date then that is his choice. We are not Jewish... I saw no need. With the one on the way, we are going the same route. I think that at this point it is a culturally accepted norm in the West to have the males circumcised. So that has driven what is to me a useless procedure that has no medical benifit over not being circumcised. My son has never had an infection, and is no different from those who have been cut. I think to perpetuate this practice when there is no religous, or medical reason in non Jewish families is barbaric. I know everyone else does it.. but when does it stop? If it was our culture to begin with then fine... but when did the drive to circumcise every male in the West begin? Gwyn edited to add link http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-any-conclusive-m About conclusive evidence of circumcision being healther.

Rule -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 3:05:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin does anyone know the origin of the practice and could offer any information as to why it became incorporated in belief ? It was required by the last god of the jews. I seem to recall that it was required only of Isaac, the son of Abraham. The latter converted it into a clan mark. Some African tribes do the same when they scar the faces of their children in a particular way. Other cultures have dress codes as clan markers, like for example particular religions and religious sects, and of course the Scottish kilts. quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Further to that can anyone suggest why it was deemed necessary to mutilate a functional part of a perfect form created by the Maker? Unfortunately it does offer some protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Anaerobic bacteria die when exposed to oxygen. Molds will die when they dry out when exposed to arid air. The circumcized penis may have a tougher skin with callus, making it harder for a virus to infect it and less likely to bleed and thus be vulnerable to infection. Unfortunate, there are severe evolutionary disadvantages as a consequence of this mutilation. From an evolutionary perspective it is far better to not have such protection. quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin a perfect form created by the Maker? The Creator creates. The Maker makes. They are two different gods. In any case, the last god of the jews was neither the Creator, nor the Maker. He was merely a creator and a maker without capital letters.

opposingtwilight -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 3:36:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity. So, if your problem here is "mutiliation", why not address such issues as tattoos and piercings? Or hell, even getting your hair cut. After all, it was all put together by the maker and changing any aspect of it might be insulting to said maker, no? Or ...

blacksword404 -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 3:52:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity. So, if your problem here is "mutiliation", why not address such issues as tattoos and piercings? Or hell, even getting your hair cut. After all, it was all put together by the maker and changing any aspect of it might be insulting to said maker, no? Or ... Seems your just dropping shit on everybody today. Lol.

opposingtwilight -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 4:17:40 PM)
Wind me up and watch me go.

beargonewild -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 4:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity. So, if your problem here is "mutiliation", why not address such issues as tattoos and piercings? Or hell, even getting your hair cut. After all, it was all put together by the maker and changing any aspect of it might be insulting to said maker, no? Or ... Or maybe the OP is simply trying to get opinions to his query without getting into a senseless debate regarding uncircumcised versus circumcised. Which is a debate that should be in it's own separate thread.

colouredin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 4:41:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight Wind me up and watch me go. Or chill out?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:01:13 PM)
" Anthropologists do not agree on the origins of circumcision. The English egyptologist, Sir Graham Elliot Smith, suggested that it is one of the features of a `heliolithic' culture which, over some 15 000 years ago, spread over much of the world. Others believe that it may have originated independently within several different cultures; certainly, many of the natives that Columbus found inhabiting the `New World' were circumcised. However, it is known that circumcision had been practised in the Near East, patchily throughout tribal Africa, among the Moslem peoples of India and of south-east Asia, as well as by Australian Aborgines, for as long as we can tell. The earliest Egyptian mummies (1300 BCE) were circumcised and wall paintings in Egypt show that it was customary several thousand years earlier than that [3,4]. " http://www.cirp.org/library/history/dunsmuir1/ quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Circumcision of males, I understand it is done for religious reasons by followers of Judeo/Christian beliefs, what I would like to know, is , does anyone know the origin of the practice and could offer any information as to why it became incorporated in belief ? Further to that can anyone suggest why it was deemed necessary to mutilate a functional part of a perfect form created by the Maker ?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:02:17 PM)
Or chain you to a slave ring ;) quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight Wind me up and watch me go.

opposingtwilight -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:12:24 PM)
Then I'd just run around in circles. lol

opposingtwilight -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:13:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity. So, if your problem here is "mutiliation", why not address such issues as tattoos and piercings? Or hell, even getting your hair cut. After all, it was all put together by the maker and changing any aspect of it might be insulting to said maker, no? Or ... Or maybe the OP is simply trying to get opinions to his query without getting into a senseless debate regarding uncircumcised versus circumcised. Which is a debate that should be in it's own separate thread. If your comment made any sense, I might actually be inclined to formulate a reply ...

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Circumcision of males, I understand it is done for religious reasons by followers of Judeo/Christian beliefs, what I would like to know, is , does anyone know the origin of the practice and could offer any information as to why it became incorporated in belief ? Further to that can anyone suggest why it was deemed necessary to mutilate a functional part of a perfect form created by the Maker ? Because the Bible was written by men, and even then....2,000 years ago....(when they didn't shower, brush their teeth, have bars of Ivory {99 and 44/100ths percent pure} soap) they understood the health values of circumcision. Simply...back then, uncircumcised men could clean their pee pee largely by swimming. (Hence, why they wrote about it). Most of the "personal" issues that were written about back then (in parable, as religious need) were written to protect health. Ditto on the cloven hoof thingy...we didn't (then) have ovens, fridges or Kosher Deli's.

beargonewild -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 6:09:53 PM)
Don't how much bloody clearer I could get...cripes

OrionTheWolf -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 10:32:52 PM)
Bound in bara position? quote: ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight Then I'd just run around in circles. lol

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/20/2009 12:22:21 AM)
Hi Gwynvyd, I didn't put forth my own personal views regarding circumcision for males as this topic has appeared previously and my views are documented there. I think it will finally stop being used as a 'norm' for non religious purposes when parents stop being lazy and teach their children how to clean themselves properly as you did with your son, as I did with my own (he still has his foreskin and never encountered a problem as he was taught to draw it back and wash thoroughly which served two purposes, one to keep him clean, and the other to ensure it didn't tighten to prevent drawing back). Perhaps another reason parents are more inclined to opt for circumcision is that with incest being rife among caucasian households, parents are more inclined to take preventative measures - "If it ain't there we don't need to have THAT kind of contact with Anthony" and therefore no suspicion can be generated. It's just a thought. Regarding female circumcision, there's a model in the UK called Waris Dirie who has personally experienced, she detailed her harrowing story and one which is a fairly common one. You may want to look her up and read her story, Gwyn, as she likely explains the culture behind this practice better than any western viewpoint could. Congratulations on the soon-to-be new arrival, that's wonderful news and when you have written your thesis, would it be possible for me to read it? quote: ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd This is a very timely thread. My Thesis is on Female Genital Mutiation (FGM). I have to do an expository thesis... so it bites. I wanted to do one on the cultural, and religious signifigance of FGM and how the West does not understand it's context in relation to our own society. Now all I can do it on is what is FGM, what cultures and religions is it practiced in. Personally when I had my son I outright refused to have him circumcised. He got what God gave him. If he wants to have it lopped off at a later date then that is his choice. We are not Jewish... I saw no need. With the one on the way, we are going the same route. I think that at this point it is a culturally accepted norm in the West to have the males circumcised. So that has driven what is to me a useless procedure that has no medical benifit over not being circumcised. My son has never had an infection, and is no different from those who have been cut. I think to perpetuate this practice when there is no religous, or medical reason in non Jewish families is barbaric. I know everyone else does it.. but when does it stop? If it was our culture to begin with then fine... but when did the drive to circumcise every male in the West begin? Gwyn edited to add link http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-any-conclusive-m About conclusive evidence of circumcision being healther.

aravain -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/20/2009 7:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan Perhaps another reason parents are more inclined to opt for circumcision is that with incest being rife among caucasian households, parents are more inclined to take preventative measures - "If it ain't there we don't need to have THAT kind of contact with Anthony" and therefore no suspicion can be generated. It's just a thought. I'll admit I was agreeing with you but you lost me there o.O Got any sources, or care to explain where that opinion comes from?

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/20/2009 10:03:28 AM)
It may seem like a huge leap in logic, Aravain, and I do not have any sources/actual statistics I can pull up to link here. It's not an opinon I simply 'decided' upon one day and it is purely based on reported instances of incest in the UK, no where else in the world. I had access to certain information (coupled with claims made to me by members of the constabulary - that part is purely hearsay, obviousy) based on the number of cases both reported and those which led to convictions. While incest is not discriminatory, per se and it does affect people from every socio-economic grouping, from my understanding there is (or perhaps more accurate to say - was) is a higher prevalence in caucasian households but then, I can only say this from when I came into that information and that was back in the late 90s. Based on the above, coupled with more frequent reportings via the media of sexual abuse, I wondered whether there was a correlation insofar as many parents not taking an interest in their boy/s' personal hygiene because of the stigma attached when false allegations are made, but then, they could just be lazy.

Rule -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/20/2009 10:24:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan I think it will finally stop being used as a 'norm' for non religious purposes when parents stop being lazy and teach their children how to clean themselves properly as you did with your son, as I did with my own (he still has his foreskin and never encountered a problem as he was taught to draw it back and wash thoroughly which served two purposes, one to keep him clean, and the other to ensure it didn't tighten to prevent drawing back). Are you talking about sexually non mature boys? If so, you did the most careless, unhygienic thing imaginable. Until they become sexually mature, the foreskin has an airtight seal to the glans, making it impossible for any dirt or infection to get between the foreskin and the penis. However, when someone - likely a misinformed parent suffering from a compulsive obsessive disorder to mess with the penis of their child - pulls back the foreskin of such a boy, this airtight seal, that is meant to protect the penis from infection during his childhood, is broken and then indeed all kind of diseases and other penile porblems are rife. Fortunately my parents were not as careless. I never knew what was protected by my foreskin until I had my first erection. To all parents who do not know anything about a normal non mutilated penis: DO NOT EVER TOUCH THE GENITALS OF YOUR IMMATURE CHILD!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875