It hit me after my nephew was born last week. My brother wanted him circ'd after he agreed to leave him intact, because when he saw him he thought "it" (penis) "looks f-ing weird without a circ". We're not talking about those who truly believe the "health" BS as a reason for circ. What I'm seeing is that those who circ really just think that's the way a penis should look. So it became clear as day to me last week - some people see their new infant sons as people and some see them as possessions. People have the right to choose how their genitals look and function, possessions are subject to their owner's whims.
So the next time someone hits me with a "look like Dad" argument, I'll just ask them - is your newborn son a person or your POSSESSION?
BTW, my nephew is intact. My DEAR DEAR SIL gets it.
So the next time someone hits me with a "look like Dad" argument, I'll just ask them - is your newborn son a person or your POSSESSION?
BTW, my nephew is intact. My DEAR DEAR SIL gets it.
: Our culture never tells us that foreskin on an infant is NORMAL! So, why would parents cosmetically alter their newborn ds's genitals so they can be attracted to his flaccid penis by making it look erect? To see bare glans on an infant just looks wrong. The only difference between a circumcised erect penis and the intact erect penis is the SCAR! What is so darn attractive about a SCAR? Personally I find the soft supple moist glans much more appealing than a dried up flared out HARD looking mutilated piece of equipment! (I'm talking about the ADULT of course.) With out that cushion of which nature provided for the women's pleasure, you need to improvise with artificial lubes and its just so, well - unnatural!
:
:
