A "nurse" cuts her baby boy

On this thread...

Bekah Smith Ashley Wellen Again, apologies to those who may be "allergic to math", but this may closer to the meaning of Luke 23:34 ("Father forgive them for they know not what they do") than all this Galatians 6:15 nonsense. If the "100 babies die of circumcision per year" is to believed (and I counted some eight deaths in the first couple of months of 2014 without really paying attention), and given a million or two circumcisions per year, that means your baby boy has a one in ten thousand chance of DYING from circumcision. Okay, for the math-challenged, this is approximately equivalent to laying out on each of ten small tables twelve rows of fifteen revolvers, so 15 guns going to the side and 12 going up, and ONE of them has a bullet in one of the chambers. The doctor picks up one of them and hands it to you, your little baby boy is lying there, strapped down, looking trustingly up at you, cooing, and you point the gun into his little face and pull the trigger. Would you do it? Because that is what you're doing.

Don't play "Deer Hunter" with your kid!

Oh, and of course that doesn't take into account "botched" circumcisions and forced gender reässignments and such, and all the non-fatal problems, which are much, much more common.

This is just too amazing:
Brittany Jacobelli I am a horrible mom and a skank! My son and my fiancé are both circumcised and guess what?? My next son will be too! If you guys are so against in America and think Europe is so great for not doing how about you to the fuck over there??? And for one, who in the fuck does getting her son circumcised make Bekah Smith a skank??? So you even know what a skank is? And to try and say you hope she has cancer on her face? Like how is that any better then cutting off some extra skin, cancer kills, cutting fore skin doesn't. RUDE. And another thing you know what else America has a big problem with CYBER BULLING which is what you girls are doing your bulling the mothers who have made the decision to circumcise their son. How about you fight against that too?? If it is so bad and inhuman like them wtf do doctors still do it?? If our body is perfect just the way God intended in then why do ppl get tattoos and piercings?? Or hope about why do ppl wear makeup and dye their hair?? It's extra skin for crying out loud they obviously found something medically wrong with it or they wouldn't have started cutting it off. Do you plan on fucking my son?? No so why the fuck is it any of your business what condition his penis is in?? Is it any of your business what kind of relationship I have with my son when he gets older?! No so shut the fuck up and go about you lives! There is sick ppl out there stealing children and raping them then murdering them how about you take your protest shit somewhere else where it matters. Their are little babies that have cancer and fighting for their lives and I can almost bet you anything they wouldn't give a flying fuck on if they were circumcised or not they just wanna live!!! How about you go fight for their lives and take your argument to their parents who are sending them through radiation and making them sick and their hair fall out and doing whatever it takes to keep their child alive why don't you call them skanky bad moms that are just the most disgusting parents and hope they get cancer too for putting their child through that and see if one don't punch you in the fucking face?!

Kelsie Patton I'm not sure I follow the distinctions you're making. If somebody beats their kid up, or doesn't give them food, or doesn't give them their insulin or other medicine, does that make them a bad parent? If so, would you be wrong for NOT telling somebody, like the police or CPS, about it, especially if the abuse were repeated and severe? Is that "my place" to do that, in some cases like that?
It seems that if you take a knife or pay somebody else to take a knife and cut off part of your son's body, especially sexual anatomy, then the onus is on YOU to show that it's not the same thing, that it's not horrible child abuse. Does that make sense?
So are you suggesting that, like with all other forms of child abuse, where the reporting person agonizes for a while before finally deciding that yes, it's bad enough and it's happening all the time, I should do something, that it is or is not their business to do so? That we are or are not responsible as members of society to protect children, even the children of others, even children not yet born?
Circumcision is more "clear-cut" (so to speak) because it's already been done. If you see a little (American) boy's penis, there is a big scar running all the way around it (and it's very upsetting when HE finds out that's what it is) and his foreskin is missing. That's physical evidence. Just like if their were a big burn scar on his back where mommy punished him by dumping hot grease on him. The reporting person could just tell the authorities that they saw the scar and that would speak for itself, no need to be called as a witness.
Even if parents who do cut their son's penises or dump hot grease on them or deliberately break a bone only do it once, does that mean they "get a freebie"? That they're not bad parents? You did it, it's over, it's kind of your right as a parent anyway, so it would be rude to talk about it?
I kind of see it as my business to a degree because if somebody raises a psycho or just a severely maladapted person, then my kids are going to have to share the world with that person. Plus I'm a human being and I hate to see other humans (or any animals) treated cruelly -- supposedly it's a human trait, moreso than with some other animals. In that sense, if somebody engages in or advocates horrible parenting practices, that person should be called out, and it's a valuable social debate to consider such things.
Kelsie Patton, Bekah Smith, I guess it doesn't occur to you the ludicrousness of something like "some men like having less sensitivity because they can last longer". Would you believe somebody if they said, because their mum thought it was a brilliant idea to flay all the sensitive skin and Meissner's corpuscles (soft touch nerve endings) off of their fingertips, "Oh, I LOVE   it how it takes me longer to type anything because I can't feel the keys except for the resistance against my fingers!" or "sometimes I can't finish typing something at all and get so frustrated because of my lack of sensitivity -- I LOVE   that!"

Am I to take it that you've never had a man going at you for over an hour or multiple hours where you had to reäpply lube over and over again and still you got so sore that you just wanted it over with and maybe even STILL he (and maybe you either) couldn't finish? Does it sometimes seem like he's not paying attention to you? When you ladies say "oh, my husband/boyfriend is circumcised and he's fine" do you actually believe that the times (maybe every time) when he has to think about other women in order to maintain his arousal, because of the lack of physical sensation (especially if he has a condom on), and get to climax (which is the main/only time he gets to feel anything), that he would TELL you this?

If you have any doubts that all of this is "a thing", then you have not watched television or movies or stand-up comedy in the United States of America. If you just haven't been paying attention, and I may have ruined TV and movies for you from now on. Your husbands/boyfriends almost certainly notice these references, but they sail past without mention because they simply know them to be true.

The prepuce is a natural mechanical lubricant, so the intact penis is "rolling" inside of you with much less or no friction, and that's the way it should be. No lube needed just to make the movement non-painful or not leave the woman sore afterwards, even after long periods (America uses 75% of the world's lube with 5% of the world's population). The man has to learn control, but that's true of cut guys, too, just that the intact man has more sensation to work with in order to maintain that control. Plus, since it actually FEELS GOOD during, an intact man doesn't have the drive to rush to climax, and doesn't have to concentrate hard on not losing his arousal and so has more attention he can pay to you.

More sensitivity is GOOD. It is ALWAYS good. :)

Just a suggestion: the next time you type or cut-and-paste something that sounds completely absurd or insane like "less sensitivity is better", maybe DON'T, or at least check around to see if it is in fact completely absurd, because it probably IS. Remember the whole ducks quack, ducks walk, they're DUCKS, thing? Go with that.
Ashley Wellen Bekah Smith It's not about "extra sexual pleasure" per se. Something like 80-90% of the nerves, the sensitivity is cut about (circumcision is a sloppy process), but it's all the Meissner's corpuscles (found elsewhere only in the palm of the hand and the lips) that are destroyed. One result of this is that an intact man has three times the feeling WITH a condom than a cut man without. This makes unprotected penetrative intercourse the main and final objective for the cut man, which pushes him and all of his partners into a world of unwanted pregnancy and STDs, which is exactly what we see in the USA, i.e., a much higher rate of both. That's what you're putting your sons into.

No comments:

Post a Comment