What I never really understood is why circumcision videos of infants are legal?
Infant obviously didnt agree to be recorded, so its a violation of privacy.
the only difference between it and child porn is apparently "intention", but some people are probably jerking off to circumcision videos, so I dont see how that helps.
There’s a strong ethical argument that publicly sharing or distributing infant circumcision videos can violate the child’s privacy and bodily dignity, especially when:
Legally, it depends on the country, context, and purpose. Some recordings are made for:
In medical settings, there are usually consent procedures involving the parents or guardians. But parental consent does not automatically settle the ethical question of the child’s future autonomy or privacy interests.
Many people also distinguish between:
The second case raises much more serious concerns about privacy, exploitation, and digital permanence.
There are also broader debates around infant circumcision itself involving:
Different societies and individuals weigh those factors very differently.
Hmmm, in my opinion child circumcision is physical and sexual abuse of a minor...Therefore falls under the umbrella of paedophilia.
Videos thereof, fall under the same umbrella and should be regarded as child pornography...Plain and simple.
Justification thereof, is hypocritical unless one is openly in favour of legalised paedophilia and the abuse of minors.
Yeah, if someone is caught with photos of naked baby boys, he would be arrested for child porn.
Yet if same person was caught with having circumcision videos, he would not be arrested for child porn despite those videos also showing naked baby boys.
Make it make sense!
Hmmm, in my opinion child circumcision is physical and sexual abuse of a minor...Therefore falls under the umbrella of paedophilia.
Apparently, touching a baby's dick is a crime, but touching it while cutting it by circumcision isn't.
One must really go a long way to think that touching baby's dick is very horrible and harmful, but completely stops being harmful when it's touching and circumcision.
Make it make sense!
Must be what GOD intended.
The more pious and the more repressed people become, the greater is their fascination and obsession with other peoples sexuality and reproductive equipment.
Some religions do make people stupid like that.
It doesn't matter how much you whine about it being unfair, pedophilia is illegal, even if you convinced someone online that it's unfair, it's still illegal. Whine, cry, protest, complain, whatever, it is and will remain illegal. You don't even have to accept it, it's still illegal.
It doesn't matter how much you whine about it being unfair, pedophilia is illegal
Sure, I merely demand some consistency from my enemies. If they want to ban pedophilia, that's fine, but then they should also ban circumcision videos, or someone will say they are being terribly inconsistent.
Sure, I merely demand some consistency from my enemies.
Nobody gives a shit what a pedophiles demand, that is what's consistent.
If they want to ban pedophilia, that's fine, but then they should also ban circumcision videos, or someone will say they are being terribly inconsistent.
Nope, we are very consistent in not giving a shit about your inane comparisons, keep on whining crybaby, nobody cares.
Nobody gives a shit what a pedophiles demand, that is what's consistent.
At least you are consistent in your inconsistency.
So what are your views on the non-paedophilic style physical and sexual abuse of minors...That is to say circumcision...And if such videos exist...What are your views on this style of child pornography.
Though if said abusive behaviour is committed by adults, then this is in fact paedophilia...To say otherwise would surely be inconsistent and hypocritical.
Grown men fiddling with and physically harming young boys penises is what it is, no matter how liturgically you dress it up.
So in my opinion, if you support ritual circumcision then by association you also support paedophilic behaviour...The law is somewhat irrelevant at this point...But of course the law can be used to legitimise and justify anything...Just depends upon who gets to make up the law...Which is more than likely going to be supporters of abusive dick fiddling.
Oh what it is to be human hey?
Sidewalker needs to forget about his pedophobia for a second and just ask:
Is it okay to post baby's genitals online?
If no, well then, circumcision videos arent okay.
And if such videos exist
Oh, there is bunch of them on google. Apparently, its enough to just google "infant circumcision video" to get countless results.
But the problem with these videos is that they are not merely child porn. they are also sexual torture gore videos, where babies scream in pain while their dick is displayed, touched and cut painfully, with blood involved.
So if posting sexual torture gore child nudity online is okay when doctor does it, that raises a lot of questions about what people find to be okay.
So what are your views on the non-paedophilic style physical and sexual abuse of minors...
I haven't ever given it any thought till you and SatanLucy brought it up, but my initial reaction is I find it creepy that you think of infant circumcision sexually.
Damn man, get a grip.
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality...There's no denying the fact.
And if an issue is raised within the context of a discussion forum, then there is nothing "creepy" about openly discussing it.
There are a 101 other issues raised here that I never thought about previously, would it be "creepy" to discuss these issues openly.
Though for sure, social conditioning for some becomes intellectually debilitating and they have no choice but to resort to the "creepy" argument.
It's okay, I fully understand.
I find it creepy that you think of infant circumcision sexually
A lot of abusive pedophiles probably become circumcisers because it let's them abuse infants legally. And the ones who are into torture can also legally watch torture child porn in form of circumcision videos.
So the real question is, why are you defending the rights of abusive pedophiles?
That's just creepy.
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality
Well, it's not just sexuality. If it was just that, if it was just doctor touching boy's penis on video, one could say it's just sexuality.
And in that case, issues would be raised on if baby can consent to that somehow.
However, circumcision is torture. Even if I were to be convinced that baby can consent to have it's penis touched, I cannot be convinced that baby consents to being tortured. Mainly because children by default will almost always reject circumcision when given a choice. And baby screaming in pain and resisting with no idea what is happening, probably doesn't want that pain and torture at all.
So we can't really say that baby wants to be tortured sexually.
Mainly because non-verbal communication which baby possesses, usually comes in form of "smiling = good, crying = bad, seeking = good".
The baby doesn't seek circumcision.
True, perverse ideas necessitate circumcision.
And the ritual is wholly centred around human sexuality, so the vile act is wholly sexually motivated.
Sort of way more "creepy" than simply generating soundwaves as an audible utterance of the P word.
And yet Side is way more freaked out by the sound of the P word than they are by perverse ritual acts of violent infant abuse.
I've always thought that they were more enlightened than that.
And yet Side is way more freaked out by the sound of the P word than they are by perverse ritual acts of violent infant abuse.
I mean, even without P word being used, one must wonder why humanity greets infants into this world by bondage and sexually torturing them and recording it, and sees nothing wrong with that.
Well, penises are sexual organs and ritual circumcision is indeed focused on sexuality...There's no denying the fact.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
And if an issue is raised within the context of a discussion forum, then there is nothing "creepy" about openly discussing it.
OK, but creepy is in the eyes of the beholder, if a pedophile wants to talk about infants sexually that's fine, I'll pass and exercise my right to think such conversations are creepy.
There are a 101 other issues raised here that I never thought about previously, would it be "creepy" to discuss these issues openly.
Trying to see the world through pedophile eyes is creepy to me, are you saying there is nothing on the internet that you find creepy?
Though for sure, social conditioning for some becomes intellectually debilitating and they have no choice but to resort to the "creepy" argument.
Yeah, you can call it "intellectually debilitating" for me to choose what I want to think about and discuss if you want, but I'm thinking there's nothing intellectual about letting the internet choose what I think about.
But hey, you want to discuss it "intellectually", I'll defer to Marshall McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter. In their book "They Became What They Beheld" they explored how modern media and technology have transformed human perception and identity, creating a new "sensate tribal world" where people are constantly bombarded with information, leading to changes in behavior and self-awareness. They focused on the changed sense of self in modern life and made a strong case that people become reflections of the media they consume. I think my sense of ‘creepy” is a matter of internalizing the sense of how participation might affect my sense of self.
Consequently, you and SatanLucy can go be “intellectual” about the pedophile point of view on your own, I think McLuhan and Edmund Carpenter make a strong argument that I should select what I spend time thinking about. Go figure, but I choose to control the medium rather than let the medium control me.
It's okay, I fully understand.
Like I said, whatever floats your boat, I'll pass.
Go figure, but I choose to control the medium rather than let the medium control me.
Ironic considering you, but perhaps this is a goal in progress. In that case, well wishes and support.
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
What a weird way to justify torture of infant's penis and the recording of such.
Why would it even matter if it was sexual or not? I mean, it obviously is, but even if we pretend it's not, does it make it any better?
Nope, infant penises are not sexual organs, and just because SatanLucy thinks of them that way doesn't really mean I need to think in a pedophile manner with him. I choose not to consider infants sexually..
What a weird way to justify torture of infant's penis and the recording of such.
If I'm weird because infant penises don't make me have sexual thoughts, then go ahead and think I'm weird. It would probably upset me if you didn't think I was weird. Sorry Pumpkin, but you are just going to have to do your freak show without me.
Why would it even matter if it was sexual or not? I mean, it obviously is, but even if we pretend it's not, does it make it any better?
Why would it even matter if I don't want to participate in your world, I obviously don't, but even if you pretend that I do, does it make it any less creepy?
Why would it even matter if I don't want to participate in your world
You dont have to participate in any world. But if you are justifying infant circumcision videos, then yeah you are participating in that world.
Okay, so a penis is a dual purpose device, though in respect of circumcision, the whole ritual is centred around sexuality rather than urination...There's no getting away from the fact.
And Lucy and I have been discussing infant circumcision rather than paedophilia per se...Though comparisons are justifiable. given that subject matter concerns videos of adults abusing an infant by performing ritualistic surgery on the non-consenting child's penis.
And modern media and technology will undoubtedly be transforming, though material progress has always been ongoing and transforming...And human society has always been tribal...Yep, McLuhan and Carpenter state the obvious...How is this relevant?
Nonetheless, the very fact of your ongoing need to not think about the issue, manifests as an ongoing need to think about the issue....Which is the way it works Side...One cannot input and assess data, without inputting an assessing data...You can only ignore if you don't participate...What you have done is participate yet avoid and attempt to turn a serious issue into a "creepy" issue...So inevitably one wonders why...I'm guessing tribal conditioning... Ahhh...I see what you mean Marshall and Edmund.
A lot of justification for circumcision are entirely sexual:
Women like circumcised penises more (they don't, and even if they did, who cares what woman likes?)
Circumcision protects from STD (infant probably isn't gonna have sex, so the idea that circumcision will protect him from STD is insane. Also, I challenge anyone who thinks circumcision protects from STD to get circumcised and then have unprotected sex with woman with STD, preferably aids. Because they seem confident.)
Circumcision prevents masturbation in boys (an early Christian reason for circumcision in 20th century. So yes, apparently, Christians were actively imagining young boys touching themselves.)
Another note which needs to be made is that opinion of women on circumcision should never be considered as valid opinion, because women don't have opinions, they have "popularity preference". They simply prefer what is more popular. They don't "think" in the way you and I think. They think in the way of "is this popular? If yes, I approve. If no, I disapprove.".
Best proof of this "popularity preference is circumcision.
In countries where circumcision is popular, women say they find circumcised penises more attractive.
In countries where circumcision isn't popular, women say they don't find circumcised penises more attractive.
Because woman's "opinion", if it can be called that, as well as her sexual attraction, is entirely based on popularity preference of people around her.
She doesn't have her own opinion on anything. Her opinion is just whatever is popular in current environment to think.
Nonetheless, the very fact of your ongoing need to not think about the issue, manifests as an ongoing need to think about the issue.
Your ongoing need for me to think about the issue, manifests as an inexplicable neediness, perhaps for validation, or maybe control, or just a desire to prolong the stimulation afforded by the subject, but it's creepy either way.
Maybe you should just accept it and you and SatanLucy can do your sexual infant thing without me.
