Thinking about abortion now a crime.

Uncircumcised penises look like they're wearing a sweater.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Delcat wrote:

how the hell did we get from abortion wank to circumcision wank anyway

BECAUSE WE MUST TALK ABOUT STUFF THAT AFFECTS MEN

Considering it's mostly women talking about it and the men (ie: Me and penguin) are just kinda confused about the topic shift, I fail to see how that is anyway a negative.

I'M NOT SERIOUS YOU FOOL

OR AM I

Cyberwulf wrote:

I'M NOT SERIOUS YOU FOOL

OR AM I

Tbh, one can never tell when you slam on the caps lock. You're kinda clever that way.

TheHedonist wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I love walking into a thread to see a bunch of women throwing e-fists at each other over whether a structurally superfluous piece of skin being cut off is an atrocity.

The necessity of the piece of skin isn't the point, the point is whether or not they have the right to do an unnecessary surgical procedure on a child that affects their sex life for the rest of their lives when they're too young to know the implications, speak, or protest. It's not what's getting cut off that makes it an atrocity, it's the fact that you're performing unnecessary surgical procedures on a child. In what world is that not fucked up?

Also, I'm not a woman.

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

Knight wrote:

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

Knight wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I love walking into a thread to see a bunch of women throwing e-fists at each other over whether a structurally superfluous piece of skin being cut off is an atrocity.

The necessity of the piece of skin isn't the point, the point is whether or not they have the right to do an unnecessary surgical procedure on a child that affects their sex life for the rest of their lives when they're too young to know the implications, speak, or protest. It's not what's getting cut off that makes it an atrocity, it's the fact that you're performing unnecessary surgical procedures on a child. In what world is that not fucked up?

Also, I'm not a woman.

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

I believe it does several things.
1. Prevents the build up of smegma which to be honest, any guy can sort our by showering properly.
2. Prevents the few venereal diseases that can thrive in there, sorted by wearing a condom.
3. Can dull sensation in the head as the near endings are constantly exposed and simulated, and the bodyhas a habit of dulling impulses that fire off too often.
4. Makes the penis look even dafter that in normally does.

The top two were important in times when public hygiene was poor and the condom was non-exsistant, however in this day and age it's completely pointless and gives your partner one less thing to play with during oral.

Any questions?

Mafiosa wrote:

Uncircumcised penises look like they're wearing a sweater.

Mine's more like a hoody. Probably oughta stop hanging weights off the foreskin.

TheHedonist wrote:

Knight wrote:

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

But if it doesn't make a difference why raise such a damn fuss about it? It is something that has had no effect on your life whatsoever, if it really does make no difference. Whether necessary or not, why bother complaining about something that doesn't affect you?

Somath Cegem wrote:

I believe it does several things.
1. Prevents the build up of smegma which to be honest, any guy can sort our by showering properly.
2. Prevents the few venereal diseases that can thrive in there, sorted by wearing a condom.
3. Can dull sensation in the head as the near endings are constantly exposed and simulated, and the body has a habit of dulling impulses that fire off too often.
4. Makes the penis look even dafter that in normally does.

The top two were important in times when public hygiene was poor and the condom was non-exsistant, however in this day and age it's completely pointless and gives your partner one less thing to play with during oral.

Any questions?

I suppose not. Definitely informative, and I suppose I can see that third one being a problem in some way.

Knorg wrote:

Mafiosa wrote:

Uncircumcised penises look like they're wearing a sweater.

Mine's more like a hoody. Probably oughta stop hanging weights off the foreskin.

Knorg's penis:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Knight wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Knight wrote:

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

But if it doesn't make a difference why raise such a damn fuss about it? It is something that has had no effect on your life whatsoever, if it really does make no difference. Whether necessary or not, why bother complaining about something that doesn't affect you?

The fact is that its a matter of rights. The right to choose whether or not you want the skin of your penis chopped off. It's about having your genitals invaded for aesthetics and tradition, but no other good reason. Its the fact that something that *should* be so invasive sounding and uncomfortable to talk about is played up as the most normal thing in the world and is not only perfectly fine, but expected. That's the point.

Knight wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

3. Can dull sensation in the head as the near endings are constantly exposed and simulated, and the body has a habit of dulling impulses that fire off too often.

I suppose not. Definitely informative, and I suppose I can see that third one being a problem in some way.

That particular notion, however, can also be a slight blessing. Having had more stimulation, circumcised guys tend to last longer in bed, which, of course, is also a trait of Real Manly Men. So yeah, mileage can vary on that.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Knight wrote:

Somath Cegem wrote:

3. Can dull sensation in the head as the near endings are constantly exposed and simulated, and the body has a habit of dulling impulses that fire off too often.

I suppose not. Definitely informative, and I suppose I can see that third one being a problem in some way.

That particular notion, however, can also be a slight blessing. Having had more stimulation, circumcised guys tend to last longer in bed, which, of course, is also a trait of Real Manly Men. So yeah, mileage can vary on that.

Yeah but all lasting requires is a bit of self control and turning that switch in your head that says "thrust like mad you're almost there" into "Hang back and you'll get another ten minutes outta this"

Oh, and because I can't not imbed this video in threads suddenly about cocks.

You motherfuckers are wanking [hurpadurpa ] over circumcision, yet with trimmed foreskin you can at least take a whizz after masturbating without spraying the floor with urine.

Or is that just me?

Just Chipper wrote:

You motherfuckers are wanking [hurpadurpa ] over circumcision, yet with trimmed foreskin you can at least take a whizz after masturbating without spraying the floor with urine.

Or is that just me?

Yeah mate, just you.

Psy-4 wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

1. If this woman was merely CONSIDERING an abortion, there was no crime actually committed and therefore why the fuck was she arrested?

Given her mental state, the doctor suspected that the falling down the stairs wasn't an accident.

Just because she MENTIONED that she had CONSIDERED an abortion early in her pregnancy. Again, that is not a crime. If she was obviously mentally unbalanced then the doctor should have consulted a psychiatrist to get her evaluated. Consider the fact that she was financially challenged, would it really be so hard to believe that she was considering terminating a pregnancy if she was unsure that she would be able to adequately care for the child? I'm not saying that abortion is ok, just that I can understand why some women do it. Also there is FAR safer ways of terminating a pregnancy than deliberately falling down the stairs. Human nature is to prevent harm to yourself, and that includes not throwing yourself downstairs. I believe that if she really wanted to end her pregnancy then she would have done far earlier and legally. The facts are that she went to the doctors because she wanted to ensure that her fall HAD NOT harmed the baby, and instead was arrested. That is wrong.

Psy-4 wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

2. Getting upset and falling downstairs is an accident, not a crime.

While getting upset and throwing yourself down the stairs with intent to harm the fetus is.

Her intent is in dispute, and the available evidence points towards an accident. Without reading her mind we may never know the whole truth. In law one should be innocent until proven guilty.

Psy-4 wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

3. There have been breaches of doctor/patient confidentiality.

No, there wasn't. Learn2read.

Wait, aren't you that shitty troll? Nevermind.

I have read every article that was linked to at the beginning of this thread. Your extreme pro-life agenda is blinding you to what happened. For the record, I am also pro-life, but not to the point where I accuse every woman who has an accident during her pregnancy of deliberately trying to kill her unborn child.

As for me being a troll... just, whatever. You can't just accuse people of being a troll because they disagree with your opinion.

Ezri Dax wrote:

As for me being a troll... just, whatever. You can't just accuse people of being a troll because they disagree with your opinion.

Of course you can. This is the Internet.

Ezri Dax wrote:

Your extreme pro-life agenda is blinding you to what happened. For the record, I am also pro-life, but not to the point where I accuse every woman who has an accident during her pregnancy of deliberately trying to kill her unborn child.

As for me being a troll... just, whatever. You can't just accuse people of being a troll because they disagree with your opinion.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Your trolling is shitty.

Penguin wrote:

I love walking into a thread to see a bunch of women throwing e-fists at each other over whether a structurally superfluous piece of skin being cut off is an atrocity.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

ZoZo wrote:

Penguin wrote:

I love walking into a thread to see a
bunch of women throwing e-fists at each other over whether a
structurally superfluous piece of skin being cut off is an
atrocity.

Seriously, us British ladies look at a circumcised wang and go "er... but what do I do with this? How is this fun?"

Why would we care about British women? Seriously, there are PLENTY of women stateside who can find much more creative and interesting reasons to not fuck me.

It was the doctor and nurse treating her in the E.R. Therefore, yes, confidentiality was breached because even if she'd said, "Yeah, I'm gonna go abort this little fucker right now," it was not illegal.

Regardless of any legal standpoint (legality and ethics often being two very different things), what they did was morally reprehensible. She said she had in the past considered abortion or adoption. If they had genuinely cared that she was attempting to self-harm, they wouldn't have had her arrested. The would have spoken to her. They did not do this.

Even if a woman is stressed and previously considered abortion, it is still a very big leap of logic to assume she flung herself down the stairs. Especially a woman who is going to the ER to make certain her baby isn't injured.

rae wrote:

It was the doctor and nurse treating her in the E.R. Therefore, yes, confidentiality was breached because even if she'd said, "Yeah, I'm gonna go abort this little fucker right now," it was not illegal.

While Ezri is a shitty troll, you are just dense and incapable of googling.

Quote :

If individuals are examined by a physician at the request of a third party (such as an insurance company or their employer), no matter how thorough or extensive the examination, or how friendly the doctor, there is generally no physician-patient relationship and no duty of confidentiality is owed to the patients. This is because they did not seek the physician’s advice or treatment, and the relationship is at “arm’s-length.”

If you recall, the nurse requested that the doctor come see her, she did not seek doctor's advice. Also, abortion is illegal in Iowa, and expressing intent to commit a crime is a cause for alarm. Therefore, no, no confidentiality ever existed and if she'd said, "Yeah, I'm gonna go abort this little fucker right now," the doc would have to call the police.

rae wrote:

Regardless of any legal standpoint (legality and ethics often being two very different things), what they did was morally reprehensible.

You are preaching to the choir. Please stop.

rae wrote:

Even if a woman is stressed and previously considered abortion, it is still a very big leap of logic to assume she flung herself down the stairs. Especially a woman who is going to the ER to make certain her baby isn't injured.

Well, all there needs to be is suspicion, so... Also, how do we know she was making certain her baby isn't injured?

I won't be making disclaimers, saying that I don't disagree and am merely raising possibilities and eliminating assumptions, because you should already know this, and smell what the Rock is cooking, when I'm arguing the legal side while not giving any opinions on the ethical side, and phrasing it in a way that makes it seem I am implying something, but the idiot would be you, if you bite into it.

Psy-4 wrote:

Also, abortion is illegal in Iowa, and expressing intent to commit a crime is a cause for alarm.

You fail. Abortion is legal everywhere in the United States.

Psy-4 wrote:

rae wrote:

It was the doctor and nurse treating her in the E.R. Therefore, yes, confidentiality was breached because even if she'd said, "Yeah, I'm gonna go abort this little fucker right now," it was not illegal.

While Ezri is a shitty troll, you are just dense and incapable of googling.

Quote :

If individuals are examined by a physician at the request of a third party (such as an insurance company or their employer), no matter how thorough or extensive the examination, or how friendly the doctor, there is generally no physician-patient relationship and no duty of confidentiality is owed to the patients. This is because they did not seek the physician’s advice or treatment, and the relationship is at “arm’s-length.”

If you recall, the nurse requested that the doctor come see her, she did not seek doctor's advice.

Bringing in a doctor in the ER to consult on a case doesn't fall under the "third party" rule in this case, I believe. The third party thing would be if, say, a court required a mental evaluation of someone by one of their docs or if, as in your example, an insurance company has one of their approved doctors conduct an exam of a prospective insured. These are medical professionals used at the request of a true third party (the court, the insurance company).

In this case, a nurse (involved in the patient's care) called over a doctor, who is reasonably considered to be involved in the patient care setting. There's only so much a nurse can do by him-/herself, and anyone seen in an ER is under a physician's care (no matter how long it takes to see one).

Knight wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

But if it doesn't make a difference why raise such a damn fuss about it? It is something that has had no effect on your life whatsoever, if it really does make no difference. Whether necessary or not, why bother complaining about something that doesn't affect you?

Well, for some guys, it does make a difference. I've read many quotes from circumcised men who reported great gains in sensitivity after they started doing foreskin restoration. Some men had none or little feeling in their glans before restoration; others had too much and found that clothing rubbing on the bared glans was an irritant. Other reasons are emotional and psychological - they prefer the look or feel of an uncut penis, or they are just angry over something that was done to them without their consent. The reasons are as varied as the men doing restoration.

I have also read quotes from men who chose to be cut as adults who say that the decision to get cut was the worst decision they ever made, and that they were not informed properly of the risk of a loss of sensation. And then I've read quotes from men who were cut as adults who report little or no loss of sensation, or sensations that are still just as good, but altered in some way. So it is highly individualistic and what works for one man may be disaster for another.

Plus, there are different cuts or 'styles' of circ that either remove more shaft skin or more inner mucosa, or that are tighter or looser on the shaft. A too-tight cut can result in pain during erections, and a very loose cut can just result in a penis that looks almost like an uncut one. So it is important for someone choosing the surgery to know that. A lot of people don't; they just think that all circ'd dicks look the same.

Also, if I knew I'd been subjected to a surgery that, if it had gone very, very wrong, could have resulted in my loss of ability to feel ANY sexual pleasure at all, or to have sex, I'd be freaked out. So I don't think that circ'd men are weird for being freaked out by that.

Somath Cegem wrote:

I believe it does several things.
...
3. Can dull sensation in the head as the near endings are constantly exposed and simulated, and the body has a habit of dulling impulses that fire off too often.

Any questions?

Yeah, what about the formation of neuromas on the circ scar? I've heard that some researchers say that instead of nerve endings regenerating normally in a scar (like a circ scar) they just form abnormal neuromas, which results in abnormal, altered sensations.

rae wrote:

It was the doctor and nurse treating her in the E.R. Therefore, yes, confidentiality was breached because even if she'd said, "Yeah, I'm gonna go abort this little fucker right now," it was not illegal.

Regardless of any legal standpoint (legality and ethics often being two very different things), what they did was morally reprehensible. She said she had in the past considered abortion or adoption. If they had genuinely cared that she was attempting to self-harm, they wouldn't have had her arrested. The would have spoken to her. They did not do this.

Even if a woman is stressed and previously considered abortion, it is still a very big leap of logic to assume she flung herself down the stairs. Especially a woman who is going to the ER to make certain her baby isn't injured.

This. Quoted for truth. If she was suspected of self-harming or being at risk of self-harm (as is the case when one flings oneself down the damn stairs), then she needed psychiatric help, not prison! And if her partner was suspected of possibly being at fault (if she lives with someone), then she needed to have the option of a safe place provided. Not prison.

Jesus. wrote:

Knight wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Knight wrote:

Perhaps not necessary but isn't it supposed to be more hygienic or something? I'm always confused as to exactly why this is such a big deal, but maybe that's because I myself am uncircumcised. If I had more time on my hands at the moment I'd Google this myself, but what real difference is there between being circumcised or not, other than the lack of a foreskin? What difference does the procedure make that it's worth this much of a fuss?

The point is it doesn't make a difference. It's unnecessary surgery.

But if it doesn't make a difference why raise such a damn fuss about it? It is something that has had no effect on your life whatsoever, if it really does make no difference. Whether necessary or not, why bother complaining about something that doesn't affect you?

The fact is that its a matter of rights. The right to choose whether or not you want the skin of your penis chopped off. It's about having your genitals invaded for aesthetics and tradition, but no other good reason. Its the fact that something that *should* be so invasive sounding and uncomfortable to talk about is played up as the most normal thing in the world and is not only perfectly fine, but expected. That's the point.

I dunno, parents generally have the rights to make choices like that for their children. The children may resent them for it, but it is their right to do what they feel is best for their children, is it not?