Seeing a woman who doesn't like uncircumcised, might be a deal breaker for her

[Crabbies]

I just feel like I'd rather never have sex again than have sex with a man who's uncircumcised. That's just my honest feeling; I'm not saying it's "right" but how can you have sex with someone whose body grosses you out? If it weren't a cultural norm, I imagine I wouldn't notice or care, but this is something that's pretty deeply ingrained for whatever reason.

I do hope the OP finds a girl without my (or his current girl's) cultural biases.

 

Uncircumcised does not equal soaked in a mixture of sulphuric acid and the ebola virus...WHAT is so revolting about an uncircumcised dick that you'd give up sex? "Grosses you out"?

Have you ever seen one in real life?

What experience do you have that would lead you to make such a decision?

[Crabbies]

My dad and and granpa were cut. If I have a son he will be cut. BTW, I am Catholic.

 

I think an uncut penis does not have a classic look.

 

:lmao::lmao:

I think the natural look would have to be considered, "classic"...

this is just further proof of how people are so uncomfortable with their bodies as they are naturally...

All this shaving, waxing, covering oneself in chemicals, fake hair, straightened hair, plastic nails, silicon tits, botox, lipo, rhinoplasty, all for the classic look...

Everyone should do as they please, but damn, I think we're heading for a time when people won't know what they look like naturally anymore...

[zengirl]

Uncircumcised does not equal soaked in a mixture of sulphuric acid and the ebola virus...WHAT is so revolting about an uncircumcised dick that you'd give up sex? "Grosses you out"?

Have you ever seen one in real life?

What experience do you have that would lead you to make such a decision?

 

I understand it doesn't mean anything inherently bad. But it kills all my desire for a guy.

 

As I said, I've not seen one in real life. If I did date a guy who had one, and it didn't bother me, I wouldn't be unhappy about it. I just feel like likely if that happened. . . I'd see it and be unable to have sex then and have to break up with him. For me, it's not a decision so much as a pure instinct. Just the way all attraction is. I don't have many real physical dealbreakers either. Most of the things I'd think of (I don't commonly date blonde men, but if only blonde men were left on this earth tomorrow, I imagine I'd find one) aren't that big a preference; nothing compared to this.

Edited August 18, 2011 by zengirl

[Crabbies]

If she dumps you and dates other Australian guys, she's going to be very disappointed. She should date Americans, Jews, Muslims or fellow Africans if she wants circumcised.

 

Forget Europe too...

 

It is extreme in her requesting you cut your foreskin off for her. It would seem to be a rash decision to make for someone you just recently met and hardly know? I am sure she would be upset if you requested she trim her bush, chemically straighten it, and dye it blonde.

 

Best answer yet, tell her you're not sure her black curly bush will be clean enough for you, you're not used to it. :lmao:

 

I understand it doesn't mean anything inherently bad. But it kills all my desire for a guy.

 

I'd see it and be unable to have sex then and have to break up with him. For me, it's not a decision so much as a pure instinct. (Or stupidity) .

 

Kills all your desire and you haven't even seen one... I hope to God you fall in love with an uncut guy who you end up begging him to f*ck you but he won't...I

Ill bet if you met some british rock star you fancied or that dude from Twilight, you'd soon change your tune.

I've read a lot of stupid sh*t on this forum, but this takes the cake , biscuit, the whole freakin' bakery section...

[Cypress25]

Asics, it's funny that you go on and on about the harmful nature of circumcision, and then in your very next post you talk about the physical problems caused by your foreskin. If you were circumcised, you would not be experiencing this discomfort, would you?

 

Seeing as how all of your arguments against circumcision came from a website that is actively anti-circumcision, all of those points are biased and therefore invalid. If you can find those "facts" verified by a neutral, impartial source (one that is neither pro-circumcision nor anti-circumcision), then they might have some weight. Everything you quoted is just propaganda.

 

Besides, if any of that were true, then every circumcised man would be suffering immensely. How do you explain the fact that 95% of circumcised men have absolutely no problem with it?

 

My point is the way a cut penis was termed as 'normal'

 

Perhaps "normal" was the wrong word. Feel free to substitute the word "common" instead.

 

You don't see anything wrong with parents amputating a piece of their sons penis because they believe in something and he doesn't have the power to stop them yet?

 

To me, it's the same as cutting the umbilical cord when a baby is born. It's an extra piece of skin that is unnecessary and can be removed safely. Truly, male circumcision is not harmful and it doesn't bother the kid. If a tiny minority of men are bothered by it, it's because they have psychological problems that are unrelated to that missing flap of skin. Probably guys who can't get laid and want to blame it on their lack of foreskin. If this procedure was harmful, you'd hear a lot more about it. Out of the millions of circumcised men in the world, perhaps 5% of them (probably less) have any complaints. The rest are doing just fine, and most of them say they're glad they're circumcised.

 

Uncircumcised does not equal soaked in a mixture of sulphuric acid and the ebola virus...WHAT is so revolting about an uncircumcised dick that you'd give up sex?

 

It's just a matter of being accustomed to a penis that looks a certain way. There's nothing wrong with uncircumcised, but if you're not used to it, it's rather weird-looking. And it would feel strange. I'd want to be turned on by my boyfriend's body, not weirded out by it. It may not be logical, but it's a feeling you can't control. Like when I see a spider and I get chills. There's no logical reason for me to be creeped out by a spider, but I can't help it.

[OliveOyl]

It's really not that weird looking especially when erect, which I imagine is most of the time you'd be seeing a penis.

 

**WARNING** Graphic Material...

 

*** Do NOT click if you're at work or around youngsters.... ***

 

*** You've been warned ***

 

*** Really, I mean it ***

 

*** Okay here goes ***

 

http://bit.ly/oF0uLx

 

Seriously, does that look any different? Uncut cock in all its glory.

[D-Lish]

It's really not that weird looking especially when erect, which I imagine is most of the time you'd be seeing a penis.

 

**WARNING** Graphic Material...

 

*** Do NOT click if you're at work or around youngsters.... ***

 

*** You've been warned ***

 

*** Really, I mean it ***

 

*** Okay here goes ***

 

http://bit.ly/oF0uLx

 

Seriously, does that look any different? Uncut cock in all its glory.

 

Glad I live alone... hehe.

 

As I've said, I dated a guy for quite a while before I noticed. We were in the shower together after sex and I looked down and realized "oh, he's uncut"...

 

I couldn't imagine a guy going downtown and then saying- "hmmm, ya know what D-lish? There's not enough symmetry happening down there for me, I really like you, but that's a deal breaker for me..."

[nyc_guy2003]

It's really not that weird looking especially when erect, which I imagine is most of the time you'd be seeing a penis.

 

**WARNING** Graphic Material...

 

*** Do NOT click if you're at work or around youngsters.... ***

 

*** You've been warned ***

 

*** Really, I mean it ***

 

*** Okay here goes ***

 

http://bit.ly/oF0uLx

 

Seriously, does that look any different? Uncut cock in all its glory.

 

If you're going to post a d!ck pic why wouldn't you just post a huge one instead of that small little thing. It's like going to rob a bank and only taking the $1 bills.

[D-Lish]

I HIT ALERT US. I DIDENT read to after the fact. yuck

 

So let me get this straight, you saw there was a warning attached (a great deal of warnings), knew what the thread was about- yet decided to click on the picture out of curiousity??? You knew what you were going to see- and then you report it?

 

What did you expect to see- a cute little puppy?

[Pierre]

No there is a huge difference, there is a difference between having a preference and a deal breaker.

 

I am a guy who loves big boobs, my current GF has small ones. I am not going to dump her just because she has small boobs. I am not going to ask her to get breast implants.

 

zengirl would presumably go out multiple times with a guy, she would like him and get to know him. She would build a connection with this guy and then get far enough in long in the relationship to where he would see her naked. Then she would dump him over being uncut?

 

Sorry there is no nice way to put it but that is very shallow.

 

Oh please!!!!!!!!

 

What if she dumps a guy for having personality she does not like like? Is that shallow too?

 

It is a matter of preference. And that is not shallow at all.

 

What if she does not like a guy because there is no chemistry? Is that shallow too?

[OliveOyl]

Theres two hundred men haveing oral sex with 400 women.

 

But they're 200 uncut men. That's the point.

 

Kidding aside, the link is definitely NSFW so be careful where you open it but it fits within the context of this thread.

 

NYC_guy, I wanna see the $100 dollar bills now! :lmao:

[D-Lish]

IT WAS A PRONOGRAPHIC IMAGE WHICH LOADED MY ENTIRE COMPUTER WITH PICTURES. THESE EVEN BABYS. I hit alert us on your rude coment too.

 

Well, Good for you, my comment wasn't rude- it only challenged your logic on opening a link that said "WARNING- GRAPHIC MATERIAL", and then having the audacity to complain about said graphic material after taking a gander at it when you were warned in advance.

 

Why even enter into a thread about sexuality if you're not comfortable with it?

[Crabbies]

Yes, waiter! More pics of bigger cocks for a few of the boys here please...

 

"Statistically speaking the most bacteria ridden place on the planet is the mouth of an American Woman"

~Cartman

4:05-4:11

[BetheButterfly]

You don't see anything wrong with parents amputating a piece of their sons penis because they believe in something and he doesn't have the power to stop them yet?

 

Circumcision is an ancient practice that began at a time period where the individual wasn't the all in all. In those times, it didn't matter what the children thought. Individuality wasn't as important as the community as a whole.

 

Children in those days didn't make decisions for themselves. They followed their fathers and forefathers. The Judaism practice of circumcision wasn't a choice. No son had the choice to say "Oh no I don't want to be Jewish, I don't want to be a descendant of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." Rather, they followed what Abraham, their Patriarch, did. If they didn't, they were cut off from their people.

 

Because of the above, it doesn't matter what I think. The individualistic idea of me me me is not a part of the spirit of circumcision. The descendants of Abraham do not circumcise because they said, "Hey I have a great idea! Let's cut off the foreskin! Who wants to be first?" (It's not amputation by the way... amputation involves a bone, correct? There is no bone in foreskin)

 

Rather, they believe God commanded them to do so as part of His covenant with them. And that's that. You don't have to agree with it or not. If you are not Jewish, it's not a part of your identity. However if you are Jewish, then more than likely your parents, who didn't ask to be Jewish anymore than you did, will have their sons circumcised. Only a relatively few Jewish people decide not to.

 

Sad to say, throughout history there has been a lot of prejudice against Jewish people, as well as other groups of people. Hopefully people do not use circumcision as a "reason" to hate a group of people.

 

 

I believe in personal freedom way more than most people, but society should protect those who can't protect themselves.

 

Cutting off the foreskin, if done in a hygienic way by a capable medical professional, is a safe operation.

 

Would you allow parents to tattoo their son if it's for religious reasons?

 

Do you consider tattoos to be bad?

[Crabbies]

 

Sad to say, throughout history there has been a lot of prejudice against Jewish people, as well as other groups of people. Hopefully people do not use circumcision as a "reason" to hate a group of people.

 

Now, anti-semitism? :lmao:

 

the only people some people hate here is uncircumcised men...

 

BTW, for all the Christians it's uh, unnecessary...1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

 

I'm going now, really... my brain's about to explode...

[zengirl]

Now, anti-semitism? :lmao:

 

the only people some people hate here is uncircumcised men...

 

I don't "hate" them. I don't think they're lesser people or something. In every aspect of my life, other than sexual, I couldn't give two figs what they are. It just turns me off, sexually. And I think not having a kid circumcised in a country where it is the norm is causing needless psychological dissonance. If tattooing kids was the norm, and there was no medical harm and in fact some medical benefits caused by it, I'd be down with that too. I think braces cause more psychological harm to most kids than circumcisions do.

 

Glad I live alone... hehe.

 

As I've said, I dated a guy for quite a while before I noticed. We were in the shower together after sex and I looked down and realized "oh, he's uncut"...

 

I couldn't imagine a guy going downtown and then saying- "hmmm, ya know what D-lish? There's not enough symmetry happening down there for me, I really like you, but that's a deal breaker for me..."

 

I understand, and yeah, sounds silly, but if a guy was repulsed by my vagina, I don't think it could work out either.

 

And you hear all the time on here about guys fussing over whether a girl has enough/too much hair (I understand waxing is not the same as going through an operation---and I definitely would never expect a person to get this procedure done as an adult when it's more psychologically fraught---though if there was some way for me to permanently keep my landscaping done that could've been easily done as a baby, by a medical professional who attempted to minimize discomfort and I had no memories of any discomfort or pain. . . I'd totally be down), so it's not like they don't care how vaginas look. Plenty of men do.

[Jynxx]

Circumcision is an ancient practice that began at a time period where the individual wasn't the all in all.

 

...

 

Children in those days didn't make decisions for themselves. They followed their fathers and forefathers. The Judaism practice of circumcision wasn't a choice.

 

...

 

Because of the above, it doesn't matter what I think. The individualistic idea of me me me is not a part of the spirit of circumcision.

 

...

 

Now replace "circumcision" by "slavery" or any random barbaric ritual and see why your "appeal to tradition" reasoning is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way"

 

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.

In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.

 

 

Do you consider tattoos to be bad?

 

Is that a yes to my original question of whether you think it's ok for parents to tattoo their childeren for religious reasons?

[fallenenvy]

Before i had ever seen him naked my bf informed me he wasn't cut. I was kinda nervous actually because A. it was something i had never ever seen before and B. i wasn't sure what to do with it.. as silly as that sounds. Anyway, once i ended up with him and had sex i found that i liked it and there really isn't much of a difference besides there being a bit more to play around with :-). It comes down to how clean the guy keeps it. If you keep it clean then shes got no reason to gripe. My bf is very sweet and offered to cut it if thats what i wanted but i like it and wouldn't want him cutting THAT area... ugh.

 

This woman needs to get over herself. Although it may be her preference.... you are the way you are and i don't think you should change it. Definitely no reason to go snipping in areas that shouldn't be snipped at this part in your life. Good luck to you

 

~Fallen

[BetheButterfly]

Now, anti-semitism? :lmao:

 

Anti semitism isn't funny, and it's still around. It didn't die out when Hitler committed suicide...

 

the only people some people hate here is uncircumcised men...

Some people hate those who are different than them, I think. It can go both ways.

 

BTW, for all the Christians it's uh, unnecessary...1 Corinthians 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

True

I'm going now, really... my brain's about to explode...

really?

[BetheButterfly]

Now replace "circumcision" by "slavery" or any random barbaric ritual and see why your "appeal to tradition" reasoning is ridiculous and dangerous.

 

There is a big difference between cutting off the foreskin and owning a slave. They are not comparable.

 

Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,[1] appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way"

 

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.

In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.

Is the above your words or do you have a source? If this is quoted from a source, please give the reference to the source? Thanks. Tradition is not in itself bad. People are by nature predictable. For example, people will normally follow the same pattern... like their morning routine, work routine, where they sit, ... Tradition is simply people following the same pattern as their forefathers. No big deal. The 8 to 5 work day is based on tradition, for example. School is based on tradition... Celebrating Christmas, Easter, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving... are all American traditions. Traditions can change, but people are habitual creatures naturally.

 

 

 

 

Is that a yes to my original question of whether you think it's ok for parents to tattoo their children for religious reasons?

The question shows that there is diversity among people as to what they consider bad and what they would consider ok. For example, my Mom thinks it's bad to pierce the ears of babies. However in some cultures, it's fine for little baby girls to have pierced ears and pretty little earrings. As for me, I personally do not see either pierced ears (though it does hurt... I know) or tattoos to be bad, though my Mom would definitely disagree. Would I subject my baby girl, if I have one someday, to pierced ears? Maybe, though it's not a religious reason. It's just pretty. Do I judge parents who do? No. Do I judge parents who don't? No. It's their decision and as long as the pierced ears is done right by a professional, I have no problem with it.

 

As for tattooing children for a religious reason, is there a culture where tattooing babies is a religious practice? If so, then as long as it is done safely and hygienically, I have no problem with it. I personally do not see anything wrong with tattoos, however. It is interesting to note though that in Jewish Scriptures, tattooing is not allowed at all, though circumcision is required (only for descendants of Israel)

Edited August 18, 2011 by BetheButterfly

[OliveOyl]

Oh nvm.

 

(10 chars needed).

[Jynxx]

There is a big difference between cutting off the foreskin and owning a slave. They are not comparable.

I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying your arguments are equally valid to defend both, thus worthless.

 

Is the above your words or do you have a source? If this is quoted from a source, please give the reference to the source? Thanks. Tradition is not in itself bad. People are by nature predictable. For example, people will normally follow the same pattern... like their morning routine, work routine, where they sit, ... Tradition is simply people following the same pattern as their forefathers. No big deal. The 8 to 5 work day is based on tradition, for example. School is based on tradition... Celebrating Christmas, Easter, Independence Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving... are all American traditions. Traditions can change, but people are habitual creatures naturally.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

 

The question shows that there is diversity among people as to what they consider bad and what they would consider ok. For example, my Mom thinks it's bad to pierce the ears of babies. However in some cultures, little baby girls have pierced ears and pretty little earrings. As for me, I personally do not see either pierced ears (though it does hurt... I know) or tattoos to be bad, though my Mom would definitely disagree. Would I subject my baby girl, if I have one someday, to pierced ears? Maybe, though it's not a religious reason. It's just pretty. Do I judge parents who do? No. Do I judge parents who don't? No. It's their decision and as long as the pierced ears is done right by a professional, I have no problem with it.

 

That's the whole issue with it. You think earrings are pretty, which is ofcourse your right. But is your opinion enough to send a kid who can't defend himself through irreversible and permanent physical mutilations? I personally think not.

 

I do think it's bad to pierce ears, tattoo or curcomcise anyone that's not an adult with full mental capacity as these things are all permanent and cannot be undone. The fact that alot or most people do it in some countries, or that it is happening for thousands of years, is irrelevant. Every person should have the right to decide to have or have no foreskin, inject permanent ink into his body or make holes in his skin. Other people should never be allowed to make the decision for them, no exceptions.

[OliveOyl]

It's NOT the "norm" anymore, and here are some facts:

 

It's down to less than 60% in America, starting in the last decade:

 

"Figures from the 2003 Nationwide Hospital Discharge Survey state that circumcision rates declined from 64.7% in 1980 to 59.0% in 1990, rose to 64.1% in 1995, and fell again to 55.9% in 2003.[23] On page 52, it is shown that the western region of the United States has seen the most significant change, declining from 61.8% in 1980 to 31.4% in 2003.[23]"

 

(From Wikipedia).

 

And the prevalence in Asia and Europe is less than 20%.

 

So there should be less and less "psychological dissonance" from not having an operation that is totally unnecessary.

[BetheButterfly]

I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying your arguments are equally valid to defend both, thus worthless.

 

I didn't write the Tanakh, so if you wish to argue with it, be my guest.

 

If you want to understand how circumcision came into being, then I suggest you look up how and why.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Thanks. It's always good to post references when quoting something.

 

 

That's the whole issue with it. You think earrings are pretty, which is ofcourse your right. But is your opinion enough to send a kid who can't defend himself through irreversible and permanent physical mutilations? I personally think not.

You are looking through a lense that is very individual centered. One thing that is important to understand is that in different groups of people, individual desires is not the main goal of life. If you wish to study more about circumcision, you will see that it is mostly practiced by people who do not place individual desires as top priority. The Hebrew practice of circumcision has nothing to do with if the individual wants to or not, but has everything to do with identity and fulfilling a part of the covenant they have with God. Jesus, for example, was circumcised. He didn't ask to be, but as Law of Moses commands, his parents had it done to him.

 

You consider it to be mutilation, but that is based on your worldview. Those who do circumcise for religious reasons consider it fulfilling part of their covenant with God. So, your worldview has little merit to their worldview, their worldview has little merit to your worldview. That is what happens when people are diverse. Fun fun That's when agreeing to disagree and respecting even if you don't agree is very helpful.

I do think it's bad to pierce ears, tattoo or curcomcise anyone that's not an adult with full mental capacity as these things are all permanent and cannot be undone.

Pierced ears can actually be "undone" by not wearing earings and letting the hole close. Tattoos can be removed. Circumcision is the only permanent one on the above list.

 

Do you think that it's bad for a 10 year old girl to get her ears pierced?

 

 

The fact that alot or most people do it in some countries, or that it is happening for thousands of years, is irrelevant.

It is actually very relevant. We live in a diverse world. Diversity is good, not bad.

Every person should have the right to decide to have or have no foreskin, inject permanent ink into his body or make holes in his skin. Other people should never be allowed to make the decision for them, no exceptions.

And of course every person should have the right to decide where they will be born, who their parents will be, what they wear at age 2 (many kids would decide no clothes lol), what kindergarten they go to, how much homework they should do, when they go to bed, when and how they die (hopefully much much later in life, as an old person, though sad to say, some younger people - mostly teens, feel the desire to commit suicide at least once... though thankfully many don't act on it), and so on.

 

Life is not like that. Parents decide much of what happens to their children, and other variables (such as ethnicity) are simply not up for anyone to decide. If a parent is beating a child, abusing a child sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally, then of course officers of the law should interfere. However, neither circumcision nor ear piercings are considered abuse. Rather, they are cultural differences that while some people of one worldview disagree with, others do not have a problem with. People are diverse.

Edited August 18, 2011 by BetheButterfly

[Jynxx]

I didn't write the Tanakh, so if you wish to argue with it, be my guest.

 

If you want to understand how circumcision came into being, then I suggest you look up how and why.

Let me repeat it for you once more: I don't care where it came from, I don't care what a book says, I don't care what generations before you did, all I care about is whether or not a persons body should be changed without his consent (which can only be given when that person is an adult).

 

 

You are looking through a lense that is very individual centered. One thing that is important to understand is that in different groups of people, individual desires is not the main goal of life.

I have no problem with that at all, as long as the members of such a group join by free will and have the right to unjoin at any time. If someone starts a religion tomorrow where it is necessary to stab out your left eye and only go to the bathroom on days that contain the letter "r", that is their right. Now if they start stabbing out eyes of little childeren, that's a whole different thing, even if their parents are members and believe it's the right thing to do. Agree with me on that? Society has to protect people who can't protect themselves, even against other people who believe they are doing the right thing.

 

You consider it to be mutilation, but that is based on your worldview.

It's definately mutilation

Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

[...]

Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, burning, flagellation, tatooing or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage

Pierced ears can actually be "undone" by not wearing earings and letting the hole close. Tattoos can be removed. Circumcision is the only permanent one on the above list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

Do you think that it's bad for a 10 year old girl to get her ears pierced?

yes. Do you think it's good if a 4 year old has his lip disked by his parents?

It is actually very relevant. We live in a diverse world. Diversity is good, not bad.

Quote me saying anything about diversity itt

And of course every person should have the right to decide where they

1.will be born,

2.who their parents will be,

3.what they wear at age 2 (many kids would decide no clothes lol),

4.what kindergarten they go to,

5.how much homework they should do,

6.when they go to bed,

7.when and how they die (hopefully much much later in life, as an old person, though sad to say, some younger people - mostly teens, feel the desire to commit suicide... though thankfully many don't act on it), and so on.

1,2. Don't be ridiculous.

3,4,5,6. None of those things are irreversible. Add to that, I've argued for adults to make choices for themselves, not childeren. You really should look more into my posts and less into that book you keep telling me about.

If a parent is beating a child, abusing a child sexually, physically, mentally, emotionally, then of course officers of the law should interfere.

Couldn't agree more.

However, neither circumcision nor ear piercings are considered abuse.

Most people in Europe would consider it abuse, and from what I've heard a growing amount of people in the US become convinced it is abuse. Not that it is relevant: female circumcision isn't considered abuse in some countries, and I hope we can all agree that women in those countries shouldn't be subjected to that either.

Rather, they are cultural differences that while some people of one worldview disagree with, others do not have a problem with. People are diverse.

Some things are universal.