Circumcise me?

ouch!!!!!
it must hurt a lot right???

By scar, I mean the line that's slightly lighter than the rest.

Anyway lack of foreskin makes masturbating more difficult,

ie penile cancer etc etc. They found the risk to be negligible.

By scar, I mean the line that's slightly lighter than the rest.

Isn't it supposed to be the foreskin being pulled back and forward that is the pleasurable thing? Anyway lack of foreskin makes masturbating more difficult, and therefore less pleasurable perhaps? - Obviously only people who've been circumcised in later life will know this answer though.

If female circumcision is mutilation, why isn't male circumcision mutilation?

Edit: When I said "It's a bit weird" I meant the whole circumcision idea. I'm not insulting anyone's genitalia!

Female circumcision is a LOT different from male. Males don't get parts of their anatomy sewn up using thorns, to be forced open (often using a knife) on their wedding night. Even if you're just removing the clitoral hood, it's still much more damaging, and more frequently done badly and in unsafe conditions. Even if done surgically, it reduces their sexual function far far more than male circumcision does.

ahhhh!!!!!! i could never let someone chop my baby's pee pee!!!!!!

You are basing your argument on the incorrect labelling of such practices as "circumcision", and not on the severity of the procedure. Males have been ritually subjected to mutilation of an equal and/or greater magnitude, right up to removal of the entire genitals.

The only direct analogue of surgically performed male circumcision is surgically performed female circumcision, of the hood only. You don't back up your statement of this being "far far worse", but I fail to see how this would be the case - it is even occasionally done as a corrective procedure (in my opinion the only valid reason for circumcision of either sex) for women whose natural form inhibits their sexual function.

Hmm, ok, circumcision is incorrectly labeled then. Female "circumcision" is just plain wrong.

It's harder for girls to do it. I think my boyfriend was disappointed when we first got together, but I was like "well, you're missing a necessary part of your penis for all my techniques"!

I really object to it on the fact that it's an unnecessary operation and it's such a random choice. You don't need your earlobes, why not cut those off instead? Does anyone have any historical facts on why certain religions decided to cut bits off their babies' penises?

OK, normal male circumcision is a medical procedure, largely believed to be beneficial or whatever.

Female 'circumcision' as it is so called, is nasty nasty mutilation because women need all their bits - there's nothing optional down there, it's all necessary stuff.

Slight difference!

If these people believe in God so much then they must believe that God invented soap and water to wash with aswell.

Most of these people also believe we were created in the image of god, so why they think it should be altered at birth I don't know.

There is alot of proof that one who had a cirmusions have a virtually zero chance of having penile cancer