Disturbing Demands for Male Mutilation

by Oisín Wed Oct 13, 2004 15:45

I am a True Irishman, with a Tiny little dong covered in Ginger pubes. If yours isn't like that well you are just not irish. Bloody Foreigners!

by Large Wed Oct 13, 2004 15:12

You speak for yourself, average.

by average Wed Oct 13, 2004 15:01

You speak for yourself, Oisin.

by Oisín Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:48

Circumcision came out of warm countries were the men were more likely to have 'betty swollocks' so it became a hygenie issue. In Ireland however your better off having as much cover down there as possible on a cold winters day. If you have ever jumped into the sea off the forty foot on a cold winters day you know how gratefull you feel to still have your own personal willy warmer.
It's also the reason we Irish men have such little willies.

by Devil Dog Wed Oct 13, 2004 01:08

Oh for the love of God, won't someone please think of the children!!!!!

by linda massie - national organisation of circumcision information resource centre of northern ireland Tue Oct 12, 2004 22:45 nocircni at yahoo dot co dot uk 07929069617

I am currently publishing an article on the Waterford baby case which was presented at an international human rights conference in Padua, Italy in September.

Social services must protect children of both genders from these practices not to do so is a neglect their duty to protect children from abuse.

by Priorities Thu Aug 28, 2003 02:39

I wonder, is it possible for us to get back to the real issue, that this procedure, of doubtful necessity, is carried out on babies, and is therefore involuntary. Apparently it is done for cultural and "traditional" reasons, which I think, makes it a little bit dubious.

This discussion came about as a result, I think, of the article in the Irish Times of last Saturday, 23rd August. I wonder how many of you have read that article, and also the various links that were posted further above on this thread?

This is a serious issue, and should not be treated in a frivilous, and therefore, evasive manner.

by Seáinín Wed Aug 27, 2003 20:32

See who comes over the red-blossomed Heather
Their flagpoles aloft in the clear mountain air
Heads erect, eyes to front, thrusting proudly together
Sure freedom sits throned in each fine foreskin there.

And down the hill winding, their blessed seed shining
In fountains of plenty that gush from each glans
From mountain to valley 'tis the libertines' rally
Out and make way for the uncut prepuce fans !

by pat c Wed Aug 27, 2003 18:18

Abstract
Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

More at:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

by pat c Wed Aug 27, 2003 15:31

Its by a special witchdoctor. The fact thats he highly paid and a rabbi doesnt make him any less of a witchdoctor than the shamen who carry out such mutilations in primitive settings.

by Paul Moloney - Somewhere in the Twenty-First Century Wed Aug 27, 2003 15:24 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

>Why not when Jews have a "Special" dispensation >to "mutilate" their sons ?

Yes, but to be fair, all circumcisions of Jews is performed by specially-training Mossad squads wielding laser mohels.

P.

by Seáinín Wed Aug 27, 2003 03:53

Some little NKVD shithead is using my tag. Typical crap to expect on a site like this.

by ??? Tue Aug 26, 2003 21:36

"marching prudly together" ? seainin
So you admit you are a prude?

Don't compare yourself to the fenians, you are not fit to lick their boots.

by Seáinín Tue Aug 26, 2003 21:25

If the girls can have their "Vagina Monologues" then by God we´re entitled to our "Dick Cheese Diatribes" ....

Let us stand up for our principles ...
Heads erect, eyes to front marching prudly together .... like the bould Fenian men of old .....

by George Dillon Tue Aug 26, 2003 21:12

The irony is that some of these people seek asylum on the basis that they want to avoid female circumcision and then demand the taxpayers here pay for male circumcision!

by ??=?? Tue Aug 26, 2003 20:22

Thats me f****d then,if they ever get back into power.

by iosaf Tue Aug 26, 2003 19:34

Many north-Americans were deemed to be "jewish" upon being stripsearched by the Gestapo in Germany and deported on those grounds. Himmler's SS could not believe that they were circumcised for hygeine reasons and maintained they had to be jewish.

by Gaillimhed Tue Aug 26, 2003 15:28

OK, so hands up anyone who has ever had one of these seemingly mythical health/hygiene problems claimed to be due to the presence of the 'schmuck'. (apart from tightness requiring removal) .
Ive had a foreskin all my life and never had a problem with it, and im sure most people would agree.

by Mary J Mon Aug 25, 2003 22:52

Pat C.

I don't agree that my comment was offensive, provocative perhaps.

You are incorrect in assuming that I was supporting male circumcision, in fact I agree fully with the rest of your letter, I would even go further and say that there is a lot of mythology and obfuscation regarding the so-called "health reasons"

I won't waste too much time responding to the other posts, there are too many of them, and there are noses and bottoms to be wiped here, but I think iosaf's article was excellent and enlightening, as usual.

"All religion is for misguided weak minded fools (-jams)
Ay-men

"This is something that should have been stood up against a long time ago" (-Pat C)
Ay-men

by housewife's favourite Mon Aug 25, 2003 20:29

with the exception of gorgeous Andre and Ahab shoukri.

by brainless clinging bimbo Mon Aug 25, 2003 20:27

NO seriously, from a feminist point of view, all men should be castrated, whatever their religion, or ethnicity. Circimsion just doesn't go far enough. From a female perspective, male castration makes a lot of sense.

Men no matter what their racial background or politics are infantile dickheads, with no brain, common sense or consideration for anyone but themselves.

by pat c Mon Aug 25, 2003 20:21

it is not racist to want to protect children from sexual mutilation. male circumcision is a barbaric practice.

is anyone seriously suggesting that female circumcision should be allowed? if not then how can you justify male circumcision.

the only way to protect children from christian, jewish and muslim fundamentalists is to outlaw circumcision expect on medical grounds. such operations should only be allowed in public hospitals.

by anti racists Mon Aug 25, 2003 20:13

Why does the 'left' want to stop ethnic peoples doing things to their dicks or twats? There are 2 possible answers. 1: It is a form of control. 2: a form of patronising racism, sort of we know best whats good for the poor natives, or they better follow our laws while they are on this blessed sod! You are just racists

by pat c Mon Aug 25, 2003 20:08

its not racist to oppose male circumsision. i dont care how long it is being carried out by the jewish or muslim communities. its barbaric and should be outlawed.

female circumcision has been carried out for millennia. why dont you call the opponents of that racist?

by BNP sex offender Mon Aug 25, 2003 19:59

Why not go the whole hog and just castrate all men.

Lets face it, men are useless, a waste of space. The world would be a better place without men in it.

Think of the world wars that could have been avoided, the countless rapes, tortures, sexual and physical abuse that wouldn't have occured if men were castrated.

by white hunter, black heart Mon Aug 25, 2003 19:52

Male circumsion is part of the Jewish and muslim religions. With the progression of these religions, it is no longer compulsory or mandatory, it is down to individual choice, and these religions respect individual choice.

The Irish Jewish community is a settled community, dating back many centuries, for you to call them babaric foreign refugees exposes your racism and fascist attitude to those Irish citizens whose culture/religion is different to yours.
Some non Jewish/muslim, christian irish people also have their male children circumcised for purely health reasons.

by a.c. Mon Aug 25, 2003 19:38

If I have sons it is a procedure I will strongly consider having done to them, not for any religious or superstitious reason but on health grounds.
Circumcision is recommended by doctors when a baby's forskin is too tight. The forskin needs to be very loose as the penis grows substantially (cue stupid pun) during puberty and the forskin which covers the flacid penis needs to be able to roll back when it becoms erect. If it cant do that easily the forskin can tighten uncomfortably or even tear during intercourse or masturbation.
In some cases the forskin can be so tight that even pre-puberty penis growth can cause it to tighten causing permenant discomfort and especially during urination.
If a doctor feels this may be a problem to a particular child it is certainly better to get the operation done as soon as possible. This was the case with both my brothers, who had it done at 6 weeks of age. Although my mother says they cried at the time they have no unpleasant memories of it, and healed completely within a week. Compare this to my brothers best friend who was circumcised at 13. He suffered years of discomfort but was too embarresed to mention it to his parents. Only the fact that the pain increased with the onset of puberty prompted him to mention it. He then went another 8 months of tests and waiting for appointments before getting the operation which required 6 painful weeks off school for recouperation. He suffered for years, it hurt more, it was a more serious operation, he missed school, it was more embarrasing and took longer to recover from probably mentally as well as physically than it would have when he was a baby.
The forskin is something which evolved to protect the eye, for want of better word, of the penis from external dirt entering it and causing infections. With the advent of clothing such as trousers and underpants it became not only unnessecary but also unhygienic. Trapping sweat, semen and urine droplets under the skin which had no place to breath. Evolution doesn't happen instantly but perhaps the reason there are more medical circumsitions than ever right now is because forskins are beginning to get progressivly smaller as they become less useful. (It may also have a lot to do with the wider availablity of medical care). But just because we are born with something does not make it a good thing, some people are born with tumours!
As well as that all recent research points to the fact that circumicesed men are 90-98% less likely to get testicullar cancer. I don't know why.
As for the religious/superstitious point, many rules which appear in old, paricularally, desert based religions such as the Old Testament or the Koran are just common sense health and safety rules for that time and place. Ie., Don't eat pigs; pork spoils the fastest of all meats so in hot climates must be eaten almost immediatly after killing the animal or not at all, not before refrigerators were around anyway. Scrub your pots with salt after use; great advice for people who dont have much water so the water is not wasted by wasing dishes but salt has cleansing properties. Why this advice had to be cloaked in religion we may never know but people are weird, and seemingly preferred to think an unseen god told them do it rather than admit some other guy living with them was smarter than they were. These rules don't apply with modern technology but most people follow without question and often don't stop to consider why. Of course as is apparent here some people rebel without question and don't consider why? Male circumcision is very different to female genital mutilation. And I would support any move to include it in the medical card scheme if it isn't already.

by Helmet Mon Aug 25, 2003 16:37

Why not circumcise the IMC Cabal? Their foreskins would become sacred relics and raise much needed funds.

by iosaf Mon Aug 25, 2003 16:01

It is held as officially numbered, blessèd and ackowledged relic in a little church in th Etruscan region of Italy. The tourist guides (remember all visitors must show respect, women must wear long sleeves and modest skirts, men must wear a shirt) recounts how the shmuck (yiddish word for the circumcised foreskin) of the Lord Jesus Christ (the one in the pictures) was taken by the crusaders from the Holy Land (the one where they do the senseless killing) and brought to Christendom (where they make all the money) in the 14th century (when no-one questioned dating, ageing or veracity). The shrine in which the shmuck of Jesus, the blessèd shmuck is kept was built in the Baroque period as such is very flowery and embelished all over with cherubs, which hagiographers and art-theologians will note are sexless and boast neither dicks nor twats.
Up to the eighteenth century, the shumck of the Lord, was brought out in procession and though discouraged pilgrims came from far and wide for it's reputed "healing properties" against the Pox, (syphilis) the itch (scratch scratch) and gonorhea. However in the 18th century increased secularism and freemasonic activity led to the blessèd shmuck being withdrawn from the public and _hidden_ for a period of thirty years. Thus when Garibaldi crossed from Sardinia in the mid nineteenth century to reunify Italy, the blessèd shmuck had been temporarily removed to safekeeping in the Vatican.
*at no point* has the blessèd Shmuck ever been "officially" relogated. Pracitising Roman Catholics are not obliged to believe in the veracity of relics, and modern day worshippers generally don't fell the need to chop bits of their holy child of Prague, but curiously all relics, saintly remains and medieval "focus" articles of devotion continue to attract the attention of the churchgoer.

I can't at the moment remember the exact name of the church where I saw the baby Jesus's alledged foreskin, but I'll hunt it for you.

by pat c Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:30

If it had been a baby girl, I doubt if you would have referred to a lot of gals talking about their twats. Now do you see how offensive your comment was?

There is no justification for female circumsicion, equally there is no justification for male circuncision unless its for health reasons.

No amount of superstition be it Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Animist can justify either of these barbarities.

Whats frightening is that Comlamh while condemning female genital mutilation is actually calling for the state to mutilate male babies.

This is something that should have been stood up against a long time ago.

by ??? Mon Aug 25, 2003 09:21

Seainin, we are not interested in your bodily functions. Go away and have your cheese sandwich, and your urine extraction, elsewhere.

by Seáinín Mon Aug 25, 2003 01:49

Nior scríobh mé an teachtaireacht deireanach seo. Tá lúdramán gan mhaith amuigh ansin ag déanamh spraoi orm.

Mary, I didn't write that last comment. There's some useless waster out there taking the piss out of me.

by Mary J Mon Aug 25, 2003 01:43

A story about a tragedy ends with a load of males talking about their dicks.
Not sure what to make of Caspian, but I will never accept a cheese sandwich from seainin.

by ;) - socialist Mon Aug 25, 2003 01:16

All circumsicion isnt done on relegious grounds.I had to have it done when I was little kid because of medical grounds and it hasnt hurt me one bit...In fact its helped me cause I dont have a load of slack skin hanging about.

by Seáinín Sun Aug 24, 2003 22:44

I think you guys are losing the plot.

If you're uncut, the main thing is to scrub it regularly beneath the foreskin to get rid of the dick cheese ...

All the rest is of secondary importance ...

by . Sun Aug 24, 2003 18:46

an article speculating on male contraception.

NYC
could you be trusted?

by Caspian Sun Aug 24, 2003 15:34

What a humourless git this Keegan fellow is. Badman I thought the baptism joke WAS funny, so there.
Prescision Man, so typical of your kind to brand anyone who disagrees with you as a racist even before they have spoken...."Give Ireland back to the Irish".....

by George Dillon Sun Aug 24, 2003 14:11

JMcK aappears not to have bothered to read the other postings. The people were not complaining about the practice per se, they were complaining about taxpayers having to fund it. As far as I know the Jewish community don't expect the government to pay for their ritual.

by jams - FABO (Fuck America + Britain Org) Sun Aug 24, 2003 12:38

You are born with a foreskin so it should stay. Its a barbaric ritual that has no place in any secular state. But given that Eire isnt what can you do. If misguided idiots want to lop off their foreskins let them choose it themselves when they over 18, not have it foisted on them as infants, what sort of choice is that?
All religion is for misguided weak minded fools.

by Acid Sun Aug 24, 2003 11:56

something goes wrong, (which is a very low ratio) circumcision on guys is a GOOD thing. Most people with a dick know this...

by JMcK Sun Aug 24, 2003 09:56

Why have you not had a problem when Jewish men circumcised every male child - they still do, and it's not in a hospital either , but that's OK, Right? What special medical registration, insurance , training and supervision do Jewish Rabbis have as they do this operation on "Irish children"(although they all have automatic Israeli citizenship).

We might do better to ask why it is that the ethos of Waterford general hospital is so infected by right-wing Catholic thinking that it will not perform circumcisions on "cultural" grounds for non-jews.

Why not when Jews have a "Special" dispensation to "mutilate" their sons ?

by Sean Keegan Sun Aug 24, 2003 09:53

Badman's attempt at a witticism about baptism is as stupid as it is unfunny. No church, be it RC, C of I, Mormon, or whatever, expects the state to fund the baptism ritual. But according to the Irish Times of a day or two ago, that is exactly what some immigrant groups are demanding in the case of circumcision. Further--and perhaps Badman was unaware of this--children are washed in water every day of their lives. I am unaware of any evidence that it harms them. There is however considerable evidence that the mutilation of circumcision is harmful to baby girls, and of no benefit to baby boys. It is not part of our culture--why should we pay for it?
If I emigrate to a foreign country I will respect the traditions and culture of that country, not ask the people of that country to pay for me to practise rituals that are alien to them.


PS: There's no need for the pedants to point out that in some cases male circumcion (and for all I know the female variant) is deemed a medically appropriate procedure. We are not talking about those cases.

by Precision Man Sun Aug 24, 2003 03:33

Circumcision links:


http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

A death in the US:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/death.htm


http://www.noharmm.org/

http://www.boystoo.com

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/religious.htm

Doctors:
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/


http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/4371/

http://www.hivnet.ch:8000/africa/af-aids/viewR?266

by Badman Sun Aug 24, 2003 03:21

The barbaric water torture of Irish children (known to the natives as 'baptism') must end.

by Seáinín Sun Aug 24, 2003 02:28

However, let me emphasise that although I am uncut I do not consider myself less hygenic that my circumised bretheren ...

I'll have ye know that I wash under the skin regularly ......

by Precision Man Sun Aug 24, 2003 01:30

"quite a few males in ireland are now actually opting for this procedure"

Maybe, but you are talking about consenting adults.

What actually happens is that most circumcision is involuntary, in that it is done to infants, and the origin of this practice was religious, not medical. The thinking behind it is the same kind of anti-sexual shite we are familiar with in this country, courtesy of the "one, true, apostolic etc."

I can see that this issue is going to attract comments from the usual racist assholes, so just remember, involuntary circumcision was practiced here among the predominently white Irish population long before the recent increase in immigration.

by Seainín Sun Aug 24, 2003 01:25

will know that male circumcision is harmless and is indeed a good hygiene measure, although I'm uncut myself.

On the other hand,cutting up the genitalia of females is mutilation.

by Kunta Kintae Sun Aug 24, 2003 00:19

The idea that circumcision is "hygenic" is a myth which was propagated in medical textbooks up until about 40 years ago.Lets not permit savage tribal mutilation customs to be inflicted on what lefties would term "Irish children" on the basis of this.

by Brian Sat Aug 23, 2003 23:25

actually circumcision in males is deemed to be a very hygenic option. quite a few males in ireland are now actually opting for this procedure and it is available in ireland. i know quite a few people who had it done for both comfort and medical reasons. medical reasons are that that the foreskin can be too tight. now female circumcision on the other hand is a strange ritual with no accepted medical benefits. it is infact just female genital mutilation. so dont just jump the gun when it comes to male circumcision because your a bit squeemish about your own tackle...