View Full Version : Circumcision - for or against?
I'm interested on hearing people's views on this topic.
Thread idea sparked by article on RT news (http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/) in which a German court announces that male circumcision, when carried out on religious grounds on children, is illegal.
Let's also not forget the issue of female circumcision.
Killercowz
26-06-12, 17:19
I think circumcision should be performed not at birth but at a later date so people have the choice to do whatever to their bodies. Furthermore I'm not with or against it, again I think people could do whatever they want to their bodies.
Erm... it should be a personal choice, IMO.
It should most definitely be a personal choice. Religion is no excuse.
Weemanply109
26-06-12, 17:26
I think circumcision should be performed not at birth but at a later date so people have the choice to do whatever to their bodies. Furthermore I'm not with or against it, again I think people could do whatever they want to their bodies.
:tmb:
Circumcision is barbaric and dangerous. Newborns die or suffer mutilation (above and beyond circumcision) every year due to the completely unnecessary practice. There are no benefits to doing it and a list of drawbacks longer than my... arm.
Religion is not a good enough reason to circumcise someone without permission.
Against for babies and for both genders. (don't know what it's called for girls tho, but my teacher told me about it)
I couldn't care either way. I don't think parents should decide it for their children but rather wait till the child can decide themselves.
It's something the children should decide once they're old enough, not the parents.
Against. If people want to mutilate themselves then fine but don't make that choice for somebody else.
Well my penis is circumsized, and I don't mind it. It just is.
Whatever is hanging from your body is probably going to be what you're the most used to.
But I'm all for the choice, therefore I don't think it should be forced upon people by having it done when they're first born.
edit: Oh and female circumcision, from what I've heard is no fun at all.
ShadyCroft
26-06-12, 18:40
Against. Its one's personal choice imo. Other than that, I would never...uncircumcised penises are beautiful!!!
Well my penis is circumsized, and I don't mind it. It just is.
Whatever is hanging from your body is probably going to be what you're the most used to.
But I'm all for the choice, therefore I don't think it should be forced upon people by having it done when they're first born.
edit: Oh and female circumcision, from what I've heard is no fun at all.
This. I didn't even know there was anything different about me until my parents were talking about it one day. They told me it was because it's easier to clean or something. I was just like "..okay thanks for asking me before you cut my skin off" lol.
This. I didn't even know there was anything different about me until my parents were talking about it one day. They told me it was because it's easier to clean or something. I was just like "..okay thanks for asking me before you cut my skin off" lol.
My mom started crying when she told me.
I guess it hurts, I don't remember.
Doesn't the circumcision interfere with sexual pleasure? I remember reading up on this years ago.
Doesn't the circumcision interfere with sexual pleasure? I remember reading up on this years ago.
Yep... Apparently the circumcision removes a bunch of nerve endings.
This. I didn't even know there was anything different about me until my parents were talking about it one day. They told me it was because it's easier to clean or something. I was just like "..okay thanks for asking me before you cut my skin off" lol.
That's true but really you can just go in the shower and roll back your foreskin and clean it manually, so it's not really that hard. So yeh I'm for the choice option, I don't like the thought of babies foreskin being chopped off :(
Uzi master
26-06-12, 19:09
Circumcision is barbaric and dangerous. Newborns die or suffer mutilation (above and beyond circumcision) every year due to the completely unnecessary practice. There are no benefits to doing it and a list of drawbacks longer than my... arm.
Religion is not a good enough reason to circumcise someone without permission.
My thoughts exactly, someone saying it doesn't really affect them is no excuse when it can and has caused the death of infants.
It shouldn't be forced on children. Not for cosmetical and not for religious reasons. If somebody wants to get it done once they're old enough, sure. But it should be illegal to get it done to your children for anything but medical reasons.
I'm cut down below since I'm a Jew, and it's a religious tradition. It's really depends on if society accepts uncircumcised penises or not. I believe that if it does not, the child's parents would be under pressure to do that. They probably don't want their child to feel like he stands out.
Doesn't the circumcision interfere with sexual pleasure? I remember reading up on this years ago.
It does not. Unless they chop the dick off.
I'm cut down below since I'm a Jew, and it's a religious tradition. It's really depends on if society accepts uncircumcised penises or not. I believe that if it does not, the child's parents would be under pressure to do that. They probably don't want their child to feel like he stands out.
It does not. Unless they chop the dick off.
It does. I remember reading that there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. There are even studies that say it has something to do with erectile dysfunction.
So? It doesn't interfere my sexual pleasure. I had that bit removed when I was a baby, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway. It's not like my dick's numb and I can't feel ****. Also I do not have an "erectile dysfunction".
So? It doesn't interfere my sexual pleasure. I had that bit removed when I was a baby, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway. It's not like my dick's numb and I can't feel ****. Also I do not have an "erectile dysfunction".
But it's proven that the pleasure during cuoitus is much lower at people with cut penises compared to uncut ones.Which is due to some amount of nerve endings being cut and to constant innervation to the ones that are still there. :p
Plus uncut looks nicer IMHO. :D
So? It doesn't interfere my sexual pleasure. I had that bit removed when I was a baby, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway. It's not like my dick's numb and I can't feel ****. Also I do not have an "erectile dysfunction".
You're a guy? O_o
I thought your name was the girls Sharon... :pi:
Larua croft
26-06-12, 19:48
Im against circumcision.
Eddie Haskell
26-06-12, 19:54
It does. I remember reading that there are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. There are even studies that say it has something to do with erectile dysfunction.
Damn! To think that all of my life I have been denied the best possible experience... Oh well, as Woody Allen said (ever so eloquently), "...my worst one was right on the money"
In many quite adult conversations over the years (most around small fires in the middle of a war zone), I can say that I have yet to hear any negative connotations or effects to being circumcised. And more than a few of the men that I served with had it done later in life. In fact one said that it was actually much better after the knife.
So? It doesn't interfere my sexual pleasure. I had that bit removed when I was a baby, I doubt I could tell the difference anyway. It's not like my dick's numb and I can't feel ****. Also I do not have an "erectile dysfunction".
You wouldn't know if you feel unless you had an experience to compare to.
just*raidin*tomb
26-06-12, 20:03
Speaking from a guy who was circumcised as a baby, I'm so flippin' relieved that I don't have it and that I don't have to worry about it happening and that I don't remember it happening. :pi:
But I guess pro choice is always a good option? Although, these days its mostly a health thing isn't it? And guys who were circumcised as a kid never miss it. Now women, of course its a different story. To be honest I didn't even know. O.o
sandygrimm
26-06-12, 20:04
this answer should come form one who has gone threw it.. what they think!
skylark1121
26-06-12, 20:06
Against!
Of course, people should have their own choice in what they do to their bodies, but let them make that decision on their own. :eek:
The ends do not justify the means when it comes to circumcision! That's purely fact!
Speaking from a guy who was circumcised as a baby, I'm so flippin' relieved that I don't have it and that I don't have to worry about it happening and that I don't remember it happening. :pi:
But I guess pro choice is always a good option? Although, these days its mostly a health thing isn't it? And guys who were circumcised as a kid never miss it. Now women, of course its a different story. To be honest I didn't even know. O.o
The health thing is pure BS tbh. How is an uncircumcised penis supposed to be a makeshift condom? I can't find anywhere online that explains the reasoning tbh. It goes against all logic and everything i know about STD's.
just*raidin*tomb
26-06-12, 20:08
^ Cleanliness is all I've heard. It's just easier to clean. I haven't heard any of this makeshift condom stuff.
this answer should come form one who has gone threw it.. what they think!
Indeed. I honestly can't speak for them because I don't remember it...at all. In fact I didn't even know I was circumcised until I was way older and learned what it was...I was like whaaaat. My parents didn't tell me so I was just blissfully unaware that there was supposed to be some (what I thought) weird skin there :p, nor did they tell about sex and all that other wonderful stuff. Figured it all own my own. This is irrelevant but yeah.
I'm interested in hearing an opinion from someone who has experienced it.
^ Cleanliness is all I've heard. It's just easier to clean. I haven't heard any of this makeshift condom stuff.
Indeed. I honestly can't speak for them because I don't remember it...at all. In fact I didn't even know I was circumcised until I was way older and learned what it was...I was like whaaaat. My parents didn't tell me so I was just blissfully unaware that there was supposed to be some (what I thought) weird skin there :p, nor did they tell about sex and all that other wonderful stuff. Figured it all own my own. This is irrelevant but yeah.
I'm interested in hearing an opinion from someone who has experienced it.
IMO a guy should clean down their thoroughly even if he has it cut or not. And there was some study that claimed that it helped to prevent against aids...
just*raidin*tomb
26-06-12, 20:19
IMO a guy should clean down their thoroughly even if he has it cut or not. And there was some study that claimed that it helped to prevent against aids...
I agree. Well it's just what I've heard. I guess some guys are really lazy about cleaning down there. Eghh gross. I haven't personally looked into it myself. (not a pun no no no no no)
I agree. Well it's just what I've heard. I guess some guys are really lazy about cleaning down there. Eghh gross. I haven't personally looked into it myself. (not a pun no no no no no)
Ya if a guy says that cut penises are easier to clean then i advise you to slowly back away because he probably just runs water on it.
the ancient
26-06-12, 20:26
I'm not against it.
It makes no difference and some people need it due health problems.
Yeah...
Surely we can all agree that it shouldn't be performed on children at birth unless absolutely necessary?
Uzi master
26-06-12, 20:56
I'm not against it.
It makes no difference and some people need it due health problems.
Yeah...
Some people do, but usually they don't. It however, can kill the infant due to infections. That alone should be reason enough not to do it unless actual health concerns are present.
Surely we can all agree that it shouldn't be performed on children at birth unless absolutely necessary?
I would hope so, but it seems some people disregard the fact infants can and do die from it.
For once, it seems, Mad Tony and I are in complete agreement :tmb: :whi:
One thing I am curious about, however, is why some religions believe that circumcising boys is the right thing to do. Are there any Jewish or Islamic members who can explain the theological origin of the practise? I've read that, in Judaism, it is often said to be a 'token of the covenant' with God, but why was/is cutting off the foreskin chosen to represent a spiritual covenant?
I truly want to understand how it became common practise and why.
I would hope so, but it seems some people disregard the fact infants can and do die from it.
Not to mention that it does hurt (I don't mean the actual circumcision, of course. You shouldn't be awake when that happens). The fact that you're not going to remember it when it happens as a baby does not mean that you don't feel the pain as a baby.
For once, it seems, Mad Tony and I are in complete agreement :tmb: :whi:
One thing I am curious about, however, is why some religions believe that circumcising boys is the right thing to do. Are there any Jewish or Islamic members who can explain the theological origin of the practise? I've read that, in Judaism, it is often said to be a 'token of the covenant' with God, but why was/is cutting off the foreskin chosen to represent a spiritual covenant?
I truly want to understand how it became common practise and why.
Now I'm not quite sure about Judaism or Islam but I know that in ancient Egypt priests and their children got circumcised because it was thought of as pure and clean. I've heard that that had to do with fungal infections (or the like) beneath the foreskin often occuring in countries with hot temperatures. Not sure whether that's actually true, though.
Not to mention that it does hurt (I don't mean the actual circumcision, of course. You shouldn't be awake when that happens). The fact that you're not going to remember it when it happens as a baby does not mean that you don't feel the pain as a baby.
Some people do remember it though and they say the memories are traumatizing.
Thank god I don't remember it.
For once, it seems, Mad Tony and I are in complete agreement :tmb: :whi:You know people say this to me a lot.
Some people do remember it though and they say the memories are traumatizing.
I was circumcised when I was eight or nine (for medical reasons, though) so I perfectly remember it. There was nothing traumatising about it, though.
I was circumcised when I was eight or nine (for medical reasons, though) so I perfectly remember it. There was nothing traumatising about it, though.
I imagine the world being more scary to babies and them also being less pain resistant than an 8 year old. :p
Some people do remember it though and they say the memories are traumatizing.
Thank god I don't remember it.
I actually always had this memory of being a baby and something painful
happening, like I was getting a needle or something.
But I don't know if that was it.
I imagine the world being more scary to babies and them also being less pain resistant than an 8 year old. :p
Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned how old I was when it happened.
Yeah, I know. That's why I mentioned how old I was when it happened.
Oh, i see.
Although, these days its mostly a health thing isn't it?
That is a myth honestly. It is healthier to have it.
Doesn't it also keep the upper part moist with natural lubricant?
TRULuverzz
26-06-12, 21:35
I'm not for or against circumcision. But it shouldn't be performed on a baby, they should make that choice when they're older.
Doesn't it also keep the upper part moist with natural lubricant?
It protects the stimulation nerves from damage. It is a fact that sexual performance is affected.
Strongly against. I see no excuses for it. It's sick, and is just one of the many things that make us less human.
It's a natural body part, it belongs there. That should be enough.
I think circumcision should be performed not at birth but at a later date so people have the choice to do whatever to their bodies. Furthermore I'm not with or against it, again I think people could do whatever they want to their bodies.
This. The only excuse I can see a child getting a circumcision is when it's for health reasons...Otherwise, religious or not...Leave it alone! Let the child decide when they're old enough to understand the disadvantages.
I think it's quite telling that even among people who are circumcised support for it is lukewarm at best.
That is a myth honestly. It is healthier to have it.
Is there actually any proof of that?
Well this is rather uninteresting. We all agree it should be left till the kid's older and will be capable of making it's own choices. :pi:
Dennis's Mom
26-06-12, 22:40
Well, I don't think men have much of a problem enjoying sex, cut or uncut. :D
I think this falls into the realm of parent prerogative according to belief.
However, it's important to know how Scott Thompson feels about it:
9R_OLbfL28g
Well, I don't think men have much of a problem enjoying sex, cut or uncut. :D
I think this falls into the realm of parent prerogative according to belief.
How so? It's an unnecessary, painful procedure that has a negative effect on one's bodily functions (however, small or unimportant that may seem) and might even leave behind a psychological trauma. It's basically like cutting off a baby's ring finger or one of its toes. Or maybe a bit of its external ear.
Parents preference. If it is going to be done, then make sure it's at done when the kid is young, hurts a lot more in later life.
How so? It's an unnecessary, painful procedure that has a negative effect on one's bodily functions (however, small or unimportant that may seem) and might even leave behind a psychological trauma. It's basically like cutting off a baby's ring finger or one of its toes. Or maybe a bit of its external ear.
How does it negatively effect one's bodily functions? Seriously, I've not heard any of this. I've even read articles about how circumcision can be beneficial. Please support your claims.
Parents preference. If it is going to be done, then make sure it's at done when the kid is young, hurts a lot more in later life.
We really don't know how much it hurts. Our best evidence is of people who say they remember it which are usually the ones that are left traumatized.
Tonyrobinson
26-06-12, 22:56
It should be a personal choice but the longer you wait the more painful it's going to be as your mind developes. :p
How does it negatively effect one's bodily functions? Seriously, I've not heard any of this. I've even read articles about how circumcision can be beneficial. Please support your claims.
It's been mentioned in this thread that it can damage nerves. And even if it doesn't, it's still mutilation. Like I said, it's just like cutting off a baby's toe. The only difference is that circumcision is socially accepted for no logical reason at all. It should be illegal to get it done to your child.
We really don't know how much it hurts. Our best evidence is of people who say they remember it which are usually the ones that are left traumatized.
It hurts. Trust me.
knightgames
26-06-12, 23:07
I'm for circumcision. Ever see "Something About Mary? I doubt he was circumsized. :D
Honestly? I don't care either way.
I'm for circumcision. Ever see "Something About Mary? I doubt he was circumsized. :D
Honestly? I don't care either way.
If people cut off a babies pinkie toe, would you care then?
knightgames
26-06-12, 23:09
If people cut off a babies pinkie toe, would you care then?
But they don't.
But they don't.
But it's pretty much the same thing. A part of the body that has little use(but the truth is that the foreskin probably has more purpose than the pinkie toe. But in theory, would you care?
Dennis's Mom
26-06-12, 23:17
Actually, the loss of a toe, even a pinkie toe is a pretty big deal. You may not notice using it, but you do. I don't think they're much equivalency there.
I'm Jewish and I had a circumcision. It hasn't affected my life in any shape or form and I don't feel deformed, nor has it affected the life of any of my friends, or anyone I know who are circumcised. And I took it as the norm until later in life when I saw what an uncircumcised penis looks like...
So I don't have a problem with it.
But I can completely understand about people having the choice. But circumcision has a religious/ traditional purpose to it (well for Jews and I think Muslims)
knightgames
26-06-12, 23:18
But it's pretty much the same thing. A part of the body that has little use(but the truth is that the foreskin probably has more purpose than the pinkie toe. But in theory, would you care?
I don't see circumcision and the removal of a toe as the same thing so I can't give a valid answer. A circumcision and the removal of a toe aren't comparable. Obviously I'd not be for the cutting of the pinky toe because I think it aids in balance and movement. To me there is a viable use to a pinky toe.
Actually, the loss of a toe, even a pinkie toe is a pretty big deal. You may not notice using it, but you do. I don't think they're much equivalency there.
People without pinkie toes walk just fine though. Human use the four other toes mainly for balance which is why the pinkie toe is a vestigial structure.
I don't see circumcision and the removal of a toe as the same thing so I can't give a valid answer. A circumcision and the removal of a toe aren't comparable. Obviously I'd not be for the cutting of the pinky toe because I think it aids in balance and movement. To me there is a viable use to a pinky toe.
But like i said above, people without pinkie toes walk perfectly fine without it even after just losing it without the need of therapy. So it can't be much use. The foreskin on the other hand contains a lot of nerve endings and helps to lubricate and protect.
Actually, the loss of a toe, even a pinkie toe is a pretty big deal. You may not notice using it, but you do. I don't think they're much equivalency there.
Then let's cut off our babies' earlobes. Or how about removing a few fingernails?
Chocola teapot
26-06-12, 23:25
It should definitely be left until one is an adult to decide.
knightgames
26-06-12, 23:49
People without pinkie toes walk just fine though. Human use the four other toes mainly for balance which is why the pinkie toe is a vestigial structure.
But like i said above, people without pinkie toes walk perfectly fine without it even after just losing it without the need of therapy. So it can't be much use. The foreskin on the other hand contains a lot of nerve endings and helps to lubricate and protect.
I don't know what to tell you. I don't see the two as the same thing so comparing them makes little sense to me. I understand how you feel. I'm not discounting it. I just don't see the example as a fair or accurate comparison.
Earlobes (Zebra) affect how someone looks and I don't think it would ever be done because of that. I'd have to think on it more to give an answer. One of the ideas of circumcision was to stand out from the other nations. Cutting the ear lobes of children would certainly accomplish that.
I don't know what to tell you. I don't see the two as the same thing so comparing them makes little sense to me. I understand how you feel. I'm not discounting it. I just don't see the example as a fair or accurate comparison.
Earlobes (Zebra) affect how someone looks and I don't think it would ever be done because of that. I'd have to think on it more to give an answer. One of the ideas of circumcision was to stand out from the other nations. Cutting the ear lobes of children would certainly accomplish that.
Why don'y you see it as a fair comparison?
And Circumcision makes you look different also.
iamlaracroft
27-06-12, 00:01
I find circumcision to be barbaric. It's not done for "religious" reasons in America, but for a ridiculous aesthetic "ideal" perpetuated by clueless men and women alike. I am embarassed to say I was ever one of the millions of giggling idiotic school girls whose reaction to uncircumcised penis talk was "ewwwwwww" or "gross!". Ashamed, really. Out of curiosity a few years back I googled everything there is to know about the uncircumcised penis and was shocked to read so many personal stories on all kinds of forums from men explaining how wonderful it felt to have foreskin, and from women, how pleasurable sex was. And thanks to my partner, now I know the difference myself. And it's all true. Never had better :D
It just makes absolutely no sense to circumsise. Not for "cleanliness" or "health" or (can't believe this excuse still exists) "aesthetic" reasons. It's a serious, permanent, and above all else, personal decision that should not be made by anyone else, least of all parents. Lob off your own dick if you want to, but leave your infant son's alone.
knightgames
27-06-12, 00:04
Why don'y you see it as a fair comparison?
And Circumcision makes you look different also.
Because IMO little toes are part of the foot and aid in balance and maneuvreablity (sp) - no matter how small. Foreskin? I don't really know how much it affects a person's life by having it removed. Sexual sensitivity is rather difficult to gage. I have no complaints so far and I'm circumsized.
Frankly, I think uncircumsized penises are ugly. It's like an elephant snout. I can't watch porn with uncircumcized members. :D
iamlaracroft
27-06-12, 00:08
Frankly, I think uncircumsized penises are ugly. It's like an elephant snout. I can't watch porn with uncircumcized members. :D
that's really offensive, to be honest. It's one thing to prefer cut, but you're talking about another human beings genetalia being ugly. that's not only hurtful to those who are uncut, but to those who find uncut to be beautiful because it's natural.
I don't think they're weird looking TBH. They were different the first time I saw, but...now it's just like...normal. Sometimes I look down and go "Where's my...oh, right".
that's really offensive, to be honest. It's one thing to prefer cut, but you're talking about another human beings genetalia being ugly. that's not only hurtful to those who are uncut, but to those who find uncut to be beautiful because it's natural.I'm uncut and I don't find it offensive. It's just someone's opinion.
iamlaracroft
27-06-12, 00:14
have you ever heard of oppositional defiant disorder?
Because IMO little toes are part of the foot and aid in balance and maneuvreablity (sp) - no matter how small. Foreskin? I don't really know how much it affects a person's life by having it removed. Sexual sensitivity is rather difficult to gage. I have no complaints so far and I'm circumsized.
Frankly, I think uncircumsized penises are ugly. It's like an elephant snout. I can't watch porn with uncircumcized members. :D
According to scientific studies, it affects the sensitivity greatly. The toe on the other hand is a vestigal structure, it has little to no use. If i overlap my pinkie to on the toe next to it and walk, I'll walk just fine. There are a number of methods that can be used to determine pleasure btw. Number 1 coming to mind being the monitoring of brain waves.
have you ever heard of oppositional defiant disorder?No, but I just looked it up. What does it have to do with the discussion?
Circumcision can be necessary for medial purposes. The benefits include reduced risk of STI's including HIV and you're also less likely to develop penile cancer if you have a circumcision.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2008/12/19/595569.pdf
Because IMO little toes are part of the foot and aid in balance and maneuvreablity (sp) - no matter how small. Foreskin? I don't really know how much it affects a person's life by having it removed. Sexual sensitivity is rather difficult to gage. I have no complaints so far and I'm circumsized.
Frankly, I think uncircumsized penises are ugly. It's like an elephant snout. I can't watch porn with uncircumcized members. :D
That's a matter of habit. If circumcision for children for anything but medical reason was made illegal, most men in thirty-forty years would be uncircumcised and nobody would complain about uncircumcised penises looking ugly anymore, simply because they'd be much more used to them.
Circumcision can be necessary for medial purposes. The benefits include reduced risk of STI's including HIV and you're also less likely to develop penile cancer if you have a circumcision.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2008/12/19/595569.pdf
You're also less likely to develop breast cancer if you cut off your breast but i believe it's pretty much insane to cut off an adolescents breasts or part of their breasts. Why the double standard?
And i don't believe the STD crap tbqh. There is no logical reason why an uncircumcised dick would serve as a condom.
If you're identified as being at risk of breast cancer due to genetic screening, a lot of people choose to have a mastectomy followed by a reconstruction. Believe me, I know, I have a friend who's not even twenty yet who could likely be facing that reality, and I also work in healthcare and it's quite common for young women to have elective mastectomies.
As for the STD stuff, I think the logic is pretty simple really. The foreskin can retain all kinds of bacteria between the prepuce, the glans and the shaft and therefore a disease could be retained in that area, while on a circumcised male it's more likely this could be "wiped" off and cleaned away post-sex.
If you're identified as being at risk of breast cancer due to genetic screening, a lot of people choose to have a mastectomy followed by a reconstruction. Believe me, I know, I have a friend who's not even twenty yet who could likely be facing that reality, and I also work in healthcare and it's quite common for young women to have elective mastectomies.
As for the STD stuff, I think the logic is pretty simple really. The foreskin can retain all kinds of bacteria between the prepuce, the glans and the shaft and therefore a disease could be retained in that area, while on a circumcised male it's more likely this could be "wiped" off and cleaned away post-sex.
But that's their choice.
But when you're having sex, bodily fluid is exchanged either way. So again, no logic behind it.
Who ever said I was referring to post-natal circumcision? I just don't have an issue with it in general.
Also, when you're having protected sex you're not really likely to exchange any bodily fluids at all. If you're having unprotected sex then you're still more likely to retain more of this behind your foreskin, because there is simply more skin there, simple math and logic. How much more likely you are to develop a problem is another matter.
I suppose it's possible you're more likely to pass on an STI if you're uncircumcised as well because many cut men don't produce pre-cum, or as much.
For the record, I'm not cut.
skylark1121
27-06-12, 00:36
Frankly, I think uncircumsized penises are ugly. It's like an elephant snout. I can't watch porn with uncircumcized members. :D
Your loss. :pi:
As for the STD stuff, I think the logic is pretty simple really. The foreskin can retain all kinds of bacteria between the prepuce, the glans and the shaft and therefore a disease could be retained in that area, while on a circumcised male it's more likely this could be "wiped" off and cleaned away post-sex.
Well... the shower was invented for reason, I suppose. Besides, STD bacteria would have more to do with whether or not one uses a condom and who they're sleeping with. At least, those are more substantial considerations than circumcision, IMO. :whi:
Circumcision can be necessary for medial purposes. The benefits include reduced risk of STI's including HIV and you're also less likely to develop penile cancer if you have a circumcision.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2008/12/19/595569.pdf
Ah, alright. So because I'm circumcised I don't have to use condoms anymore? Bull****. In lowly developed areas of the world like large parts of Africa where safer sex is not too common, this might be a valid argument but most reasonable adults in developed countries already practise safer sex which should completely protect you from STDs on its own.
Who ever said I was referring to post-natal circumcision? I just don't have an issue with it in general.
Also, when you're having protected sex you're not really likely to exchange any bodily fluids at all. If you're having unprotected sex then you're still more likely to retain more of this behind your foreskin, because there is simply more skin there, simple math and logic. How much more likely you are to develop a problem is another matter.
I suppose it's possible you're more likely to pass on an STI if you're uncircumcised as well because many cut men don't produce pre-cum, or as much.
For the record, I'm not cut.
Not likely to exchange any bodily fluids? I call BS. There are a number of fluids the vagina gives off and a number of fluids the penis gives off. There's nothing protecting bodily fluids form being exchanged. That's why a woman can get pregnant even if her partner pulls out.
Ah, alright. So because I'm circumcised I don't have to use condoms anymore? Bull****. In lowly developed areas of the world like large parts of Africa where safer sex is not too common, this might be a valid argument but most reasonable adults in developed countries already practise safer sex which should completely protect you from STDs on its own.
Where do you get the impression I said circumcised men don't need to wear condoms? ALL men should wear condoms unless they're in an LTR and both people have been tested as clean. You're just statistically less likely to catch an STD if you're circumcised, nobody in their right mind would believe this makes you "immune" :confused:
Well... the shower was invented for reason, I suppose. Besides, STD bacteria would have more to do with whether or not one uses a condom and who they're sleeping with. At least, those are more substantial considerations than circumcision, IMO. :whi:
Lol I know what the shower was invented for, but in a lot of uncut men it's surprising how quickly the smell can return, sometimes within just a few hours. Everyone has different bacteria on their body and the genitals are no exception... there are of course benefits to this "smelly" bacteria but to be honest I'd sooner be rid of it lmao.
Not likely to exchange any bodily fluids? I call BS. There are a number of fluids the vagina gives off and a number of fluids the penis gives off. There's nothing protecting bodily fluids form being exchanged. That's why a woman can get pregnant even if her partner pulls out.
I call brain death. It doesn't matter what fluids are given off if you're wearing a condom, how on earth are the fluids going to get inside you? Yeah, if you have legions, cuts etc than you could potentially become infected but in general it's not likely at all. It's the same with anal sex, there's quite a high risk of contracting Hepatitis A and HIV from anal penetration yet what are the odds really if you're gloved up?
I think the real issue here is not with circumcision but with parents getting their children circumcised without the child's consent.
Ah, alright. So because I'm circumcised I don't have to use condoms anymore? Bull****. In lowly developed areas of the world like large parts of Africa where safer sex is not too common, this might be a valid argument but most reasonable adults in developed countries already practise safer sex which should completely protect you from STDs on its own.Actually, circumcision can be dangerous in that some people will inevitably think that because they're circumcised they won't have to clean or use protection.
Where do you get the impression I said circumcised men don't need to wear condoms? ALL men should wear condoms unless they're in an LTR and both people have been tested as clean. You're just statistically less likely to catch an STD if you're circumcised, nobody in their right mind would believe this makes you "immune" :confused:
But the argument that circumcision helps against STDs is completely invalid because we already have a much better protection against those: condoms. That's the point I was trying to make.
Where do you get the impression I said circumcised men don't need to wear condoms? ALL men should wear condoms unless they're in an LTR and both people have been tested as clean. You're just statistically less likely to catch an STD if you're circumcised, nobody in their right mind would believe this makes you "immune" :confused:
Lol I know what the shower was invented for, but in a lot of uncut men it's surprising how quickly the smell can return, sometimes within just a few hours. Everyone has different bacteria on their body and the genitals are no exception... there are of course benefits to this "smelly" bacteria but to be honest I'd sooner be rid of it lmao.
I call brain death. It doesn't matter what fluids are given off if you're wearing a condom, how on earth are the fluids going to get inside you? Yeah, if you have legions, cuts etc than you could potentially become infected but in general it's not likely at all. It's the same with anal sex, there's quite a high risk of contracting Hepatitis A and HIV from anal penetration yet what are the odds really if you're gloved up?
Do you even know how STD's are transmitted? Through bodily fluid. So even if you put a condom into the equation, my logic still stands because STD's don't fly through the air.
But the argument that circumcision helps against STDs is completely invalid because we already have a much better protection against those: condoms. That's the point I was trying to make.
Well then, circumcised plus a condom must be a pretty good scenario, how do you like those odds? :p
Do you even know how STD's are transmitted? Through bodily fluid. So even if you put a condom into the equation, my logic still stands because STD's don't fly through the air.
Oddly enough as somebody who will be a qualified healthcare professional in twelve months yes I'm more than aware how STD's are transmitted. It's also worth mentioning that not all STD's are transmitted that way, genital warts being one of the exceptions, although a condom won't protect you from those.
While STD's don't "fly through the air" and I'm perfectly aware of that, statistically you're still more likely to catch an STD while uncut than you are cut. It's not an opinion, it's a fact that's been backed up by various studies and one that I don't believe some people will ever accept regardless of how much evidence is compiled.
Although obviously nobody would ever suggest circumcision as a means of contraception as you're still likely to catch an STD :ton:
Well then, circumcised plus a condom must be a pretty good scenario, how do you like those odds? :p
Unnecessary considering how safe condoms are.
Kindly read the last sentence of my last post. I am by no means suggesting people are circumcised to increase safety, I'm merely saying if you already are and wear a condom, you're about as safe as you can get while sexually active... :vlol:
(Unless you wear two :pi:)
Well then, circumcised plus a condom must be a pretty good scenario, how do you like those odds? :p
Oddly enough as somebody who will be a qualified healthcare professional in twelve months yes I'm more than aware how STD's are transmitted. It's also worth mentioning that not all STD's are transmitted that way, genital warts being one of the exceptions, although a condom won't protect you from those.
While STD's don't "fly through the air" and I'm perfectly aware of that, statistically you're still more likely to catch an STD while circumcised uncut than you are cut. It's not an opinion, it's a fact that's been backed up by various studies and one that I don't believe some people will ever accept regardless of how much evidence is compiled.
Although obviously nobody would ever suggest circumcision as a means of contraception as you're still likely to catch an STD :ton:
Nothing is truly a fact. One day someone has proven this and another someone disproved it. All we have is plausible theories and this theory is anything but plausible. Especially considering the fact that the vulnerable point on the penis is more covered on an uncut penis than a cut one.
Also, aren't their cases of the act of circumcision passing on diseases?
Kindly read the last sentence of my last post. I am by no means suggesting people are circumcised to increase safety, I'm merely saying if you already are and wear a condom, you're about as safe as you can get while sexually active... :vlol:
(Unless you wear two :pi:)
That doesn't change the fact that it would be unnecessary.
And BTW, the experiment you posted on the other page is weak. They just gathered up a whole bunch of men form different backgrounds. For it to be plausible they would have to be equally promiscuous.
Yeah, more covered, which means what exactly? There's a retractable piece of skin over the top of it which in some men is incredibly tight meaning cleaning is difficult... there's also the production of smegma which is pretty unhygienic as it is (but not linked to STI's as far as I'm aware), and it's a warmer area where bacteria can thrive. Even infections that aren't sexually transmitted have more of a chance of thriving there because of the slightly increased temperature (eg. Yeast Infections).
To be honest though, a lot of these problems are predominant in elderly people who have lost their ability to maintain a standard of hygiene down below. It's sad really :/
Anyway guys I'm off to bed as it's 2am LOL :p
EDIT - Well there's no way of accurately measuring equal promiscuity really is there? Silly as it sounds it's just not going to happen with any STD testing as it would require 100% honesty which they're unlikely to get, especially from such a large number of men.
That doesn't change the fact that it would be unnecessary.
But I've already said that it's not a necessary nor recommended form of contraceptive. Although there are a variety of medical problems that call for circumcision unfortunately, like recurrent balanitis, phismosis, paraphimosis (if this treatment isn't done quickly you can literally lose your penis). While balanitis can be cured in other ways, the only way to completely cure phismosis every time is to circumcise.
Yeah, more covered, which means what exactly? There's a retractable piece of skin over the top of it which in some men is incredibly tight meaning cleaning is difficult... there's also the production of smegma which is pretty unhygienic as it is (but not linked to STI's as far as I'm aware), and it's a warmer area where bacteria can thrive. Even infections that aren't sexually transmitted have more of a chance of thriving there because of the slightly increased temperature (eg. Yeast Infections).
To be honest though, a lot of these problems are predominant in elderly people who have lost their ability to maintain a standard of hygiene down below. It's sad really :/
Anyway guys I'm off to bed as it's 2am LOL :p
EDIT - Well there's no way of accurately measuring equal promiscuity really is there? Silly as it sounds it's just not going to happen with any STD testing as it would require 100% honesty which they're unlikely to get, especially from such a large number of men.
But I've already said that it's not a necessary nor recommended form of contraceptive. Although there are a variety of medical problems that call for circumcision unfortunately.
Most viruses such as HIV only live a few seconds outside the body so you aren't making much sense.
In reference to you edit: So in other words, it's not a scientific fact but the result of a highly faulted study.
But I've already said that it's not a necessary nor recommended form of contraceptive. Although there are a variety of medical problems that call for circumcision unfortunately, like recurrent balanitis, phismosis, paraphimosis (if this treatment isn't done quickly you can literally lose your penis). While balanitis can be cured in other ways, the only way to completely cure phismosis every time is to circumcise.
Well, you still kept saying that it would be safer which might be true statistically speaking but really is total nonsense considering a condom already is like what? 99.99999999% safe.
Okay so what about infections that aren't sexually transmitted?
Well, you still kept saying that it would be safer which might be true statistically speaking but really is total nonsense considering a condom already is like what? 99.99999999% safe.
Which is literally ALL I was saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's been mentioned in this thread that it can damage nerves. And even if it doesn't, it's still mutilation. Like I said, it's just like cutting off a baby's toe. The only difference is that circumcision is socially accepted for no logical reason at all. It should be illegal to get it done to your child.
Just because it has been mentioned in this thread does not make it true. Have you read any medical journals or articles that support this claim? I'm willing to wager that you have not because most medical texts on the subject talk about the benefits. It's not the same as mutilation. Not at all. Bein circumisized doesn't alter your life in any significant way, it is not dangerous otherwise they would not do it.
(Unless you wear two :pi:)
Actually more dangerous than wearing one. I know you were joking, but some here might not.
Okay so what about infections that aren't sexually transmitted?
Which is literally ALL I was saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
Such as?
Just because it has been mentioned in this thread does not make it true. Have you read any medical journals or articles that support this claim? I'm willing to wager that you have not because most medical texts on the subject talk about the benefits. It's not the same as mutilation. Not at all. Bein circumisized doesn't alter your life in any significant way, it is not dangerous otherwise they would not do it.
Actually more dangerous than wearing one. I know you were joking, but some here might not.
There is danger in it. People have contracted STD's from it, they've died from it, been fully mutilated, and traumatized
skylark1121
27-06-12, 01:16
Okay so what about infections that aren't sexually transmitted?
Which is literally ALL I was saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
Such as?
I'm pretty sure that uncircumcised men can get a build up of... what's it called? I don't remember (it's a mixture of semen, urine, and things of the such), but that's really rare,and it only happens if they don't clean themselves there for... years pretty much, I think. :pi:
Just because it has been mentioned in this thread does not make it true. Have you read any medical journals or articles that support this claim? I'm willing to wager that you have not because most medical texts on the subject talk about the benefits. It's not the same as mutilation. Not at all. Bein circumisized doesn't alter your life in any significant way, it is not dangerous otherwise they would not do it.
It would be mutilation. Like I said, it'd pretty much be like cutting off an earlobe. EDI
There is danger in it. People have contracted STD's from it, they've died from it, been fully mutilated, and traumatized
Exactly.
Such as?
Balanitis, and a variety of different yeast infections, just to name a few.
Personally if I suffered any of these conditions recurrently I'd sooner have the six week circumcision recovery to suffer than the conditions and anti-biotic periods almost constantly.
Actually more dangerous than wearing one. I know you were joking, but some here might not.
LOL, if somebody didn't get that I'd be concerned lol, will have to tell the boyfriend not to put two on just in case he's that thick :ton:
It's not the same as mutilation. Not at all. Bein circumisized doesn't alter your life in any significant way, it is not dangerous otherwise they would not do it.
Exactly. Hence the legality of the beneficial and sometimes life improving male procedure as opposed to the illegal disgusting practice of female circumcision.
Even so, it would still be mutilation. Like I said, it'd pretty much be like cutting off an earlobe.
No it isn't, it really isn't. Cutting off your earlobe causes lose of balance, unless you cut off both in the exact same position. Getting circumcised simply prevents you from a variety of conditions with the unfortunate loss of some penile sensitivity... with that of course comes the benefit of extra sexy time :cool:
I'm pretty sure that uncircumcised men can get a build up of... what's it called? I don't remember (it's a mixture of semen, urine, and things of the such), but that's really rare,and it only happens if they don't clean themselves there for... years pretty much, I think. :pi:
Smegma. It's also made up of dead skin cells (I might be wrong but I think this is the predominant component) and actually some men develop it incredibly quickly within a matter of hours/days.
It would be mutilation. Like I said, it'd pretty much be like cutting off an earlobe. EDI
Except removal of an earlobe would have no benefits, circumsision does. Whether it be for hygiene alone or any other of the currenly researched medical reasons. It's a redundant part of the body, would you call having one's tonsils or appendix removed mutilation too?
You'd really think you were chopping off a limb with the way some people in here behave :rolleyes:
skylark1121
27-06-12, 01:26
You'd really think you were chopping off a limb with the way some people in here behave :rolleyes:
It's unnecessary mutilation of an infant. :confused: Nothing about it is necessary.
It's unnecessary mutilation of an infant. :confused: Nothing about it is necessary.
No one said it was :confused:
Balanitis, and a variety of different yeast infections, just to name a few.
Personally if I suffered any of these conditions recurrently I'd sooner have the six week circumcision recovery to suffer than the conditions and anti-biotic periods almost constantly.
LOL, if somebody didn't get that I'd be concerned lol, will have to tell the boyfriend not to put two on just in case he's that thick :ton:
Exactly. Hence the legality of the beneficial and sometimes life improving male procedure as opposed to the illegal disgusting practice of female circumcision.
No it isn't, it really isn't. Cutting off your earlobe causes lose of balance, unless you cut off both in the exact same position. Getting circumcised simply prevents you from a variety of conditions with the unfortunate loss of some penile sensitivity... with that of course comes the benefit of extra sexy time :cool:
Smegma. It's also made up of dead skin cells (I might be wrong but I think this is the predominant component) and actually some men develop it incredibly quickly within a matter of hours/days.
Balantitis is caused by a failure to wash the penis, that applies for both cut and cut penises. Seriously, circumcision is no substitute for basic hygiene.
Except removal of an earlobe would have no benefits, circumsision does. Whether it be for hygiene alone or any other of the currenly researched medical reasons. It's a redundant part of the body, would you call having one's tonsils or appendix removed mutilation too?
I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks or the pain or the possible trauma.
skylark1121
27-06-12, 01:29
No one said it was :confused:
Umm... I know, I was just giving Scion05 the reasoning behind most peoples' reactions being so dire. :o
I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks or the pain or the possible trauma.
There are very few risks, all they do is cut of the bloody supply to that area then remove the skin, it's a very simple procedure. It's virtually the same as having skin removed from your toes had you been born with webbed feet, which some people are. What is more, you could say the same about anything, but other people may think it is beneficial enough. also, we really do not know how painful it is, but I can't imagine it being any worse than most other general procedures such as getting your tonsils out etc.
Also, I'v stated i'm against infantile cicumcision so the only people getting it ideally would be those choosing to do so and I doubt there would be much trauma caused... also, even if babies were to have it done I doubt they would remember so I have no idea where this whole trauma issue is coming from anyway.
Umm... I know, I was just giving Scion05 the reasoning behind most peoples' reactions being so dire. :o
I'm more than aware of them, but in this thread the conditions I've referred to are all conditions commonly suffered as adults and I'm actually referring to adult circumcision.
Balantitis is caused by a failure to wash the penis, that applies for both cut and cut penises. Seriously, circumcision is no substitute for basic hygiene.
Well there are times when it can actually be a necessary step towards basic hygiene. In extreme cases of phismosis it can become impossible to clean the penis, hell it can become impossible to even pass urine.
There are very few risks, and you could say the same about anything, we really do not know how painful it is, but I can't imagine it being any worse than most other general procedures such as getting your tonsils out etc.
Also, I'v stated i'm against infantile cicumcision so the only people getting it ideally would be those choosing to do so and I doubt there would be much trauma caused... also, even if babies were to have it done I doubt they would remember so I have no idea where this whole trauma issue is coming from anyway.
They wouldn't remember it, although like you I'm also against it unless there's a medical problem. The significant pain suffered by someone with a circumcision tends to fade away in the days afterwards and the remaining pain is managed by standard pain killers. Most of what happens in the time afterwards is "desensitizing" which is the period of time when the glans begins to dry out and lose sensitivity... all I can think of as a silly example is when you're hair sore after taking off a hat you've had on all day... only far far worse :ton:
There are very few risks, and you could say the same about anything, we really do not know how painful it is, but I can't imagine it being any worse than most other general procedures such as getting your tonsils out etc.
I still remember what it felt like when I woke up afterwards. It hurt like a bitch and even the painkillers they gave me didn't help. And wearing trousers was extremely uncomfortable for at least a week. And you really can't compare it to the removal of one's tonsils because that only happens when they're actually inflamed. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure with little benefit.
EDIT: I'm talking about babies and children getting circumcised for no apparent medical reason here, of course.
I'm more than aware of them, but in this thread the conditions I've referred to are all conditions commonly suffered as adults and I'm actually referring to adult circumcision.
Well there are times when it can actually be a necessary step towards basic hygiene. In extreme cases of phismosis it can become impossible to clean the penis, hell it can become impossible to even pass urine.
Then that's an actual medical reason. But phimosis can be treated using non-surgical methods such as stretching the foreskin. So once again, it's unnecessary.
skylark1121
27-06-12, 01:40
I'm more than aware of them, but in this thread the conditions I've referred to are all conditions commonly suffered as adults and I'm actually referring to adult circumcision.
Oh, okay. I have no problem with that. :p
If an adult wants to have it done, that's definitely their choice. :tmb:
Then that's an actual medical reason. But phimosis can be treated using non-surgical methods such as stretching the foreskin. So once again, it's unnecessary.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the stretching creams don't work, and in the time the patient is doing the stretching further infections can develop. Stretching works for a lot of people, not for everyone.
What would you suggest for a man whose foreskin has tightened up over a period of time and because of him being unable to care for himself and neglect/mental health issues he's never been able to deal with this with a GP... he's now in a situation where he can't pass urine (retention) but is unable to have a catheter due to the risks involved with catheterisation and unretractable foreskins. A super-pubic catheter would defeat the point of rectifying the initial problem.
What are you going to do send him home with some betamethosone cream and advise him to stretch it?
I don't think so, the foreskin itself needs sorting out and in a patient like this cream simply won't sort it.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the stretching creams don't work, and in the time the patient is doing the stretching further infections can develop. Stretching works for a lot of people, not for everyone.
What would you suggest for a man whose foreskin has tightened up over a period of time and because of him being unable to care for himself and neglect/mental health issues he's never been able to deal with this with a GP... he's now in a situation where he can't pass urine (retention) but is unable to have a catheter due to the risks involved with catheterisation and unretractable foreskins. A super-pubic catheter would defeat the point of rectifying the initial problem.
What are you going to do send him home with some betamethosone cream and advise him to stretch it?
I don't think so, the foreskin itself needs sorting out and in a patient like this cream simply won't sort it.
Then in that very rare case(according to my research) i would advise circumcision.
But it's not a very rare case, it's so very common for elderly people to require circumcisions. You cannot EVER catheterise patients with their foreskin covering the glans, so even normal patients who go into retention (very common) might need some kind of intervention if their foreskin is tight, although if they're normally able to manage a different type of catheter could be used.
I have seriously considered suing over my circumcision.
But it's not a very rare case, it's so very common for elderly people to require circumcisions. You cannot EVER catheterise patients with their foreskin covering the glans, so even normal patients who go into retention (very common) might need some kind of intervention if their foreskin is tight, although if they're normally able to manage a different type of catheter could be used.
It is very uncommon simply because it's misdiagnosed the great majority of the time. And is your example with elderly men supposed to support your argument about it being common because it seems like a jump in logic to me.
It is NOT uncommon at all. I'm a trainee nurse and have worked on many wards, it's not rare whatsoever for old people to require circumcisions.
Suing who and why?
My parents, the hospital, the doctor, hell even the church. Whatever it took.
Yeah, good luck with that lol.
It is NOT uncommon at all. I'm a trainee nurse and have worked on many wards, it's not rare whatsoever for old people to require circumcisions.
What causes the sudden rise in Phimosis when you get old then?
skylark1121
27-06-12, 01:59
It is NOT uncommon at all. I'm a trainee nurse and have worked on many wards, it's not rare whatsoever for old people to require circumcisions.
Yeah... but that's people in a hospital. You can't exactly compare it to all of the healthy people in the world. :p
It's not about the sudden rise in it, it's about the patients having bladder problems who already have phimosis (like I said, you cant put a cath in a penis with tight foreskin) and the ones who develop tight foreskins are normally socially unable to see their doctor.
Yeah... but that's people in a hospital. You can't exactly compare it to all of the healthy people in the world. :p
yes but they're the people we're currently talking about. without being intentionally mean to you, are you actually bothering to read both my posts and the surrounding posts before replying to them? because you've completely missed the point twice lol x
It's not about the sudden rise in it, it's about the patients having bladder problems who already have phimosis (like I said, you cant put a cath in a penis with tight foreskin) and the ones who develop tight foreskins are normally socially unable to see their doctor.
Well I'm reading a whole lot of articles right now about phimosis(didn't even specify my search to misdiagnosis of-) and each one mentions it's common misdiagnosis. And you yourself said the case was extreme so it can't be all that common.
skylark1121
27-06-12, 02:09
yes but they're the people we're currently talking about. without being intentionally mean to you, are you actually bothering to read both my posts and the surrounding posts before replying to them? because you've completely missed the point twice lol x
Am I mistaken to say that your point is:
There are actually more people in need of circumcision than most people think (because of your proof in your work), and that circumcision can actually be beneficial, so people shouldn't react in such an extreme manner towards the subject?
:)
I'm not saying its an everyday occurrence but it does happen. by extreme i was referring to the barbarity of the procedure on the elderly its something i still find quite an unpleasant thought when i think back to it. one person in particular comes to mind because his was the first I'd ever seen and it really bothered me but he didn't care despite being very old.
anyway i am finally off to bed will continue this tomorrow x
There are actually more people in need of circumcision than some people think or would like to accept and that circumcision can actually be beneficial, so people shouldn't react in such an extreme manner towards the subject without having any real experience on the matter and without weighing up the pros and cons of that particular case. there is no correct broad statement against the matter in relation to best interest.
:)
we'll go with that :)
I'm not saying its an everyday occurrence but it does happen. by extreme i was referring to the barbarity of the procedure on the elderly its something i still find quite an unpleasant thought when i think back to it. one person in particular comes to mind because his was the first I'd ever seen and it really bothered me but he didn't care despite being very old.
anyway i am finally off to bed will continue this tomorrow x
I know it happens but only like 1% of people have it and that's including the misdiagnosed, that's why i called it rare.
Goonight bew bew. ♥ :)
Shark_Blade
27-06-12, 02:24
Actually, circumcision can be dangerous in that some people will inevitably think that because they're circumcised they won't have to clean or use protection.http://i.imgur.com/nNd0V.gif
But since you're saying it's "some people", I'm just gonna assume those are simpletons.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nNd0V.gif[IMG]
But since you're saying it's "some people", I'm just gonna assume those are simpletons.
Some people simply aren't educated. I asked my friend why he doesn't use condoms and told him he might get an STD and he told me that he doesn't have to worry because he's circumcised. He's not stupid either. It's just that people have a misconception that STD's are a hygienic thing.
knightgames
27-06-12, 02:37
that's really offensive, to be honest. It's one thing to prefer cut, but you're talking about another human beings genetalia being ugly. that's not only hurtful to those who are uncut, but to those who find uncut to be beautiful because it's natural.
Take it for the foolish joke it was meant to be. I don't think any one really cares about what I think of uncircumsized penises, and it doesn't affect another's 'enjoyment' or 'appreciation' of them.
It's not like I said they looked like this.
OhwfQDPVSYg
And with that, I'll excuse myself from the debate. I'm getting a bit silly and other's have more important and substantial opinions.
Tombraiderx08
27-06-12, 03:35
I'm against it being done to newborns. If guys want the operation done when they're older, go for it, but I don't believe in altering a human body after birth like that.
Preventing a rare potential problem down the road is hardly a validation for circumcising newborns and infants. Otherwise they would just take the appendix out too.
110% for it.:tmb:
I am circumcised, and I thank god every day.
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 05:10
110% against it.
I am not circumcised, and I thank god every day.
110% against it.
I am not circumcised, and I thank god every day.
Lol gurl. :vlol:
Anyway, you two mind stating why youre for and against it?
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 05:38
Against.
There are no health benefits for doing it. The myth about it protecting against infections and STD's is utter rubbish. If an STD is present you will catch it regardless as they are exchanged through fluid, and as for infections...well that comes down to cleanliness and while it may technically be easier to clean a circumcised penis, it is like saying its easier to chew white bread than wholemeal. Even though as a technicality white bread is 'finer' and therefore easier to chew, it is undetectable. And I must say, it certainly is 'fun' to clean that area. ;) And just because they say it is easier to clean and therefore wont get infections doesn't mean they will clean it properly. It's down to the individual. I keep myself very clean.
Another comparison as far as 'health' goes that i would like to make is with an appendix. Something that reportedly has no use and CAN lead to health problems later. Would we remove them from babies at birth just because there is a possibility of appendicitis?
Another excuse people use for doing it is 'aesthetic', that the natural appearance of the penis is ugly. Firstly, I don't see how a circumcised one is any 'prettier' (to my tastes they are uglier), and secondly it is a mutilation and leaves a scar. What if it is decided that no earlobes was 'prettier'? Would you cut them off?
The item of a foreskin itself does have uses. It is full of nerves. Shields the delicate head of the penis from damage and locks in moisture and keeps the skin hydrated. This also goes into the production of smegma. It is a white gel like substance that develops in the foreskin and is a natural lubricant as well as keeping it healthy. But it only shows if you don't wash yourself for a week as it takes a while to build up and most people don't like it so it isn't a problem.
On a side note we are discovering the appendix does actually have uses in the immune system, just so yah know. Just because we don't know somethings use doesn't mean it doesn't have one.
For sexual pleasure, like I have mentioned, it is full of nerves. It generates more friction as it pulls back and forth and therefore more pleasure for both partners during sex and also masturbation. Those without foreskin, in order to masturbate, have to use lubricants and the end result is much harder to achieve. Cutting the foreskin off reduces pleasure greatly and in fact was a major motivator behind circumcision in the first place in an attempt to discourage boys from masturbating.
Then comes the invasion of privacy, it is your body. No one elses. Only you have the right to make alterations.
And lastly, it is natural to have a foreskin, we are born with them. It is part of the human body, and if we weren't meant to have it we wouldn't.
Anyway, there is my 2 cents... :pi:
Ceamonks890
27-06-12, 05:43
I'm definitely against this. No human being should be forced to have this treatment, religion based or not. It's just disgusting:mad:
^^ damn my bew went in!
Le clap. I agree with everything you said.
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 05:50
Thank you leglion, it is nice when we can be on the same side of an argument isn't it?
Thank you leglion, it is nice when we can be on the same side of an argument isn't it?
Yes bew for once. :*
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 06:13
I know I don't usually do this but.....
>_>
<_<
:hug:
(This is the equivalent of Sheldon Cooper giving a hug)
I know I don't usually do this but.....
>_>
<_<
:hug:
(This is the equivalent of Sheldon Cooper giving a hug)
Yes come give me some shuga! :hug:
Let's get back on topic. :pi:
And lastly, it is natural to have a foreskin, we are born with them. It is part of the human body, and if we weren't meant to have it we wouldn't.
Some babies are born conjoined. They were, naturally, born that way.
So you basically say that those who were cut after birth are not normal. Okay. Have fun with your uncut willies y'all. :wve:
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 07:40
Some babies are born conjoined. They were, naturally, born that way.
So you basically say that those who were cut after birth are not normal. Okay. Have fun with your uncut willies y'all. :wve:
That is really the best thing you could come up with? Pointing out an unbelievably rare mutation to justify cutting off standard anatomy?
Also I find it hard to believe conjoined twins were born that way, I'd like to see a mother push out two babies at once like that. Massive human intervention is needed to get them out of the womb and indeed to keep them alive, naturally they would die. So going for a 'natural way' argument with them doesn't hold up.
(Just pointing out the invalid comparison, don't mistake this for me believing conjoined twins should die)
That is really the best thing you could come up with? Pointing out an unbelievably rare mutation to justify cutting off standard anatomy?
That's better than comparing foreskin to earlobes, lol. I also don't think there's an argument on how "pretty" it looks with our without foreskin. It's a ****ing penis. It's not supposed to be a beauty queen.
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 08:38
That's better than comparing foreskin to earlobes, lol. I also don't think there's an argument on how "pretty" it looks with our without foreskin. It's a ****ing penis. It's not supposed to be a beauty queen.
Quite a number of people are removing them from their children for the sole reason that they don't think it's pretty, it's why I addressed that.
And it certainly is comparable. Both Foreskin and Earlobes are not deemed 'necessary' and are to the world's eyes 'aesthetic'. That comparison was for the argument of removing it because it apparently 'looks unsightly'. Whereas conjoined twins are an unfortunate mutation that would, if we didn't interfere, kill both of them and the mother.
You can only compare standard anatomy with standard anatomy, not mutation.
And I did also make a far more apt comparison regarding function and risk when I compared it with an appendix. Both are parts of the body that can, on very rare occasions lead to health problems and require being removed, but would you go and cut every baby's appendix out as a preemptive caution just because there is an ever so miniscule chance of developing appendicitis and the appendix 'doesn't appear to do anything'...
...like I said, just because you don't know something's purpose doesn't mean it doesn't have one. And we are just discovering what the appendix is actually for now when we used to believe it did nothing.
Zelda master
27-06-12, 09:29
I think circumcision should be performed not at birth but at a later date so people have the choice to do whatever to their bodies. Furthermore I'm not with or against it, again I think people could do whatever they want to their bodies.
It should most definitely be a personal choice. Religion is no excuse.
And with that we have the two perfect awnsers and the topic should be closed honetly :pi:
Some people simply aren't educated. I asked my friend why he doesn't use condoms and told him he might get an STD and he told me that he doesn't have to worry because he's circumcised. He's not stupid either. It's just that people have a misconception that STD's are a hygienic thing.My point exactly. You still have to clean down there whether you're circumcised or not.
The foreskin is more important to bodily function than earlobes.
!Lara Croft!
27-06-12, 11:00
The foreskin is more important to bodily function than earlobes.
If that's to my using it as an example I was talking about reputed function, as in the widespread opinion.
The foreskin is more important to bodily function than earlobes.
No it's not. The foreskin serves no valid contemporary purpose. Your ear lobes contribute to your balance.
Honestly, some of these excuses!
Sgt BOMBULOUS
27-06-12, 11:17
So is just everyone supporting what they already have? I've already seen an article that mentions this subject as a taboo for internet forums (along with religion and PC vs. Mac :p). I'm pleased to see it's proceeding in such a civil manner.
So is just everyone backing up what they already have? I've already seen an article that mentions this subject as a taboo for internet forums (along with religion and PC vs. Mac :p). I'm pleased to see it's proceeding in such a civil manner.
'Backing up' may have to be a term used very loosely for what is going on here.
Sgt BOMBULOUS
27-06-12, 11:26
How about "supporting"?
No it's not. The foreskin serves no valid contemporary purpose. Your ear lobes contribute to your balance.
Honestly, some of these excuses!
The foreskin serves a purpose... what are you smoking?
skylark1121
27-06-12, 17:27
No it's not. The foreskin serves no valid contemporary purpose. Your ear lobes contribute to your balance.
Honestly, some of these excuses!
Umm... ear lobes are completely vestigial. It's the inner ear that has to do with equilibrium. :p
Even if the foreskin did serve no purpose (which isn't true anyway) I don't see how that justifies circumcising children at birth?
Zelda master
27-06-12, 18:10
No it's not. The foreskin serves no valid contemporary purpose. Your ear lobes contribute to your balance.
Honestly, some of these excuses!
Wait what..? You mad..?
Sgt BOMBULOUS
27-06-12, 18:13
I'm still willing to bet that the "Yay" and "Nay" positions here match almost 1:1 to those who have had the procedure and those who haven't. Can we really be subjective?
ShadyCroft
27-06-12, 18:17
Can we please just forget this and just love our penises as they are ?
Can we please just forget this and just love our penises as they are ?
Exactly.
This thread has been done before, and it ended up exactly the way it is now - neither side will ever convince the other, so it's not worth it.
A better thread would be: Would you circumcise your son without their consent?
Or even discuss female circumcision.
Zelda master
27-06-12, 18:45
Can we please just forget this and just love our penises as they are ?
http://joyreactor.com/images/templates/solo/no.jpg
:p
Sgt BOMBULOUS
27-06-12, 19:29
A better thread would be: Would you circumcise your son without their consent?
Or even discuss female circumcision.
Male circumcision isn't done expressly to oppress men, so there's really nothing to discuss. Countries where female circumcision is common do it to suppress a woman's sexual desire, and the terribly ironic thing is, it isn't even very effective (not at least according to Aayan Hirsi Ali). She had it done to her when she was 4 years old, with no anesthesia...
Male circumcision isn't done expressly to oppress men, so there's really nothing to discuss. Countries where female circumcision is common do it to suppress a woman's sexual desire, and the terribly ironic thing is, it isn't even very effective (not at least according to Aayan Hirsi Ali). She had it done to her when she was 4 years old, with no anesthesia...
That was the original purpose of male circumcision.
I'm still willing to bet that the "Yay" and "Nay" positions here match almost 1:1 to those who have had the procedure and those who haven't. Can we really be subjective?
Not exactly. The three people arguing in this thread are all uncut if I'm not mistaken.
And it's a bit out of place to ask people to stop debating in the debate section guys.
can somebody explain female circumcision
TBH first time i hear that , i knew about the guys ,but females .
Zelda master
27-06-12, 19:49
can somebody explain female circumcision
TBH first time i hear that , i knew about the guys ,but females .
There are a couple of degrees of female curcumcision, I recommend just looking it up on Wikipedia. Provides a drawing explaining from little to nothing changed to quite litterly stiching the entire part shut...
can somebody explain female circumcision
TBH first time i hear that , i knew about the guys ,but females .
They do what they should've done with Pete Burns' lips.
In all seriousness, they (white text) amputate it all leaving only a small hole for menstruation and peeing.
xLara_Nathanx
27-06-12, 19:55
I've also heard that people cut women's clitoris... And during sex they open the wound to stop the woman from having pleasure... Is this true?
can somebody explain female circumcision
TBH first time i hear that , i knew about the guys ,but females .
Wikipedia's good :) The BBC Health page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/physical_health/conditions/female_genital_mutilation.shtml) is also quite informative.
While I understand the ocassional medical reasons for male circumcision, there is no justification for this brutal practise against females, IMO. It's the kind of thing you'd expect in a Saw movie, not real life. I defy anyone to put forward a justified reason for doing this to a girl or woman (unless, goddess forbid, it's to remove cancerous tissue).
They do what they should've done with Pete Burns' lips.
In all seriousness, they (white text) amputate it all leaving only a small hole for menstruation and peeing.
that's ugly urghhhrgh:(
anyway these things are disappearing every day thanks to god ,who obviously
its against this stupid thing
white text
<.<instead of making a circumcision thread,why not make a sizing tips thread >.>:p
Against. I mean let the boy grow up and decide what he wants. If he still wished to perform the procedure than go for it. I mean not even the religion is our choice but mutilating a body is not right.
As for the female curcumcision... I didn't even know something like this was happening until now. This is completely unacceptable. Basically this will prevent women from enjoying sex. It humilates them and take away their rights.
I don't understand why many religion/culture believes that the female genitalia is such a dirty, disgusting and deadly thing. I'd so like to know where this come from. Also in the meantime penises are sacred and pure. lolwut?
Against. I mean let the boy grow up and decide what he wants. If he still wished to perform the procedure than go for it. I mean not even the religion is our choice but mutilating a body is not right.
As for the female curcumcision... I didn't even know something like this was happening until now. This is completely unacceptable. Basically this will prevent women from enjoying sex. It humilates them and take away their rights.
I don't understand why many religion/culture believes that the female genitalia is such a dirty, disgusting and deadly thing. I'd so like to know where this come from. Also in the meantime penises are sacred and pure. lolwut?
this and where did you get the "LOL WUT" ,from norskchick ,just askin'?
Zelda master
27-06-12, 20:35
I defy anyone to put forward a justified reason for doing this to a girl or woman (unless, goddess forbid, it's to remove cancerous tissue).
Well considering people here and all over the world backup their arguments for Male circumcision with reasons like: "It looks better." and (as proven in MGC): "It's cleaner and smell's better.". I'm going on a limb here and say, well it looks and smells better. You know the exact same bull reason for justifying the males counterpart of the operation...
Note I'm compeletely against any form of circumcision in general on anyone who doesn't have the ability to make the choice themselfs (yet)..
Was a great discussion with my dad when my little brother was done (about three years and couple of month back), afterwards I asked him just why he did it again on one of his childeren (me being the first). Well religious reasons were thrown at me from all side's including from my stephmom who was perfectly happy that it was done, but then my point came from that if it were done for religeon reason's, shouldn't have supposed to be his and my own choice to show our faith in the religeon when we would have been old enough. Instead of quite litterly forcing us into a position that ended in the absolute opposite direction (in my case, my little half brother is three and a half years old, so to young yet) as he hoped it would, it blow up compeletly in his face. Yeah religious reasons are a great way to explain to your childeren why one or both parents decided to mess with your personal body parts.
this and where did you get the "LOL WUT" ,from norskchick ,just askin'?
I actually never saw her using it. My friend Underhoe registered here way before me and, I guess after seeing it here, he used the term a lot on MSN. After that I just learnt it from him.
I actually never saw her using it. My friend Underhoe registered here way before me and, I guess after seeing it here, he used the term a lot on MSN. After that I just learnt it from him.
its cool anyway :D
check her albums so funny
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/album.php?albumid=69
Dennis's Mom
27-06-12, 23:21
Well considering people here and all over the world backup their arguments for Male circumcision with reasons like: "It looks better." and (as proven in MGC): "It's cleaner and smell's better.". I'm going on a limb here and say, well it looks and smells better. You know the exact same bull reason for justifying the males counterpart of the operation...
No, female circumcision is strictly to deny a woman from having pleasure from sex, the idea being it will encourage fidelity if she can't enjoy it. There is no religious argument for this; it is purely cultural.
Just to clarify the religious argument, for Jews it's not a "declaration of faith" per se. The best way to describe it is "writing your children into a will" with the will being their covenant with God. They are beneficiaries, so to speak.
Muslims do not circumcise due to a specific mandate except that the Koran stresses that cleanliness and hygiene are very important to a person's well-being.
Larua croft
27-06-12, 23:33
No, female circumcision is strictly to deny a woman from having pleasure from sex, the idea being it will encourage fidelity if she can't enjoy it. There is no religious argument for this; it is purely cultural.
Thats what Male circumcision is as-well. They wanted to stop boys from masturbating. If i have a son he will not be circumcised. Its unnatural
Thats what Male circumcision is as-well. They wanted to stop boys from masturbating. If i have a son he will not be circumcised. Its unnatural
you wrong there... Male circumcision does not in any way even limit masturbation. If anything, it intensify's it, since the most sensitive area is exposed.
Larua croft
27-06-12, 23:43
you wrong there... Male circumcision does not in any way even limit masturbation. If anything, it intensify's it, since the most sensitive area is exposed.
Male circumcision to prevent masturbation
Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[40] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"
"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration." Paige details how circumcision became popular as a masturbation remedy:
"In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the 'vestigial' prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause 'nocturnal incontinence,' hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might 'give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.' Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that 'circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.' No wonder it became a popular remedy."[40]
At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[40]
One of the leading advocates of circumcision was John Harvey Kellogg. He advocated the consumption of Kellogg's corn flakes to prevent masturbation, and he believed that circumcision would be an effective way to eliminate masturbation in males.
"Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice."
Robert Darby, writing in the Australian Medical Journal, noted that some 19th-century circumcision advocates—and their opponents—believed that the foreskin was sexually sensitive:
In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.[2]
Heres the proof.
It isn't proof, circumcision dates back far before that time. Larua Croft, circumcision in a male can be done for a variety of medical or cultural reasons... Female circumcision has literally no health benefits whatsoever. It won't help with any disorders or diseases, it's literally just a way of ruining a woman's sexuality.
knightgames
27-06-12, 23:46
Thats what Male circumcision is as-well. They wanted to stop boys from masturbating. If i have a son he will not be circumcised. Its unnatural
I guess I didn't have enough cut off then. I can't tell you how many times I heard banging on the bathroom door from family members waiting to use the facilities.
"What are you doing in there!!!!!"
"Reading....... the Sears catalogue lingerie section."
Heres the proof.
Wikipedia? :whi:
I don't doubt what the foreskin does but;
I was circumcised for religious purposes (not cultural)... and I can tell you that any habits feel as fulfilling as anyone else's. So there's your proof.
Larua croft
27-06-12, 23:51
I dont know i still find it unnatural and barbaric.
Well obviously it's not natural. But neither is a mastectomy, penectomy, chemotherapy... just about any medical treatment you can have, but if you need them you're sure as hell gonna take them.
Wikipedia? :whi:
I don't doubt what the foreskin does but;
I was circumcised for religious purposes (not cultural)... and I can tell you that any habits feel as fulfilling as anyone else's. So there's your proof.
You don't know that.
I dont know i still find it unnatural and barbaric.
it's an ancient religious tradition... and you got your information from Wikipedia.
It's simply unnatural because no one was born circumcised... but that doesn't matter.
You don't know that.
Well I don't know how anyone else's masturbation feels, but If it feels great for me... and I never knew anything different, than hypothetically it must feel as pleasurable as someone who is not circumcised.
Well obviously it's not natural. But neither is a mastectomy, penectomy, chemotherapy... just about any medical treatment you can have, but if you need them you're sure as hell gonna take them.The big problem being that most people who get them don't need them. In fact most people who get them don't even have a choice in the matter which in itself is downright disgraceful.
it's an ancient religious tradition... and you got your information from Wikipedia.
It's simply unnatural because no one was born circumcised... but that doesn't matter.
Well I don't know how anyone else's masturbation feels, but If it feels great for me... and I never knew anything different, than hypothetically it must feel as pleasurable as someone who is not circumcised.
hypothetically you would have had to been masturbating before you got cut for you to know the difference. There is a scientifically proven difference however and it isn't a small one.
hypothetically you would have had to been masturbating before you got cut for you to know the difference. There is a scientifically proven difference however and it isn't a small one.
Well I would never know the difference... ever, so I can't ever compare. So the most pleasurable experience for me is once again 'hypothetically' as pleasurable as the most pleasurable experiences of someone with full skin. Despite the difference in the "theoretical pleasure".
Its a bit like a baby born without a parent... may feel like they have had as complete a childhood as another child with two parents. Even though the child with two parents would theoretically feel twice the love, since the child with one parent never knew a father (or mother figure), the child "hypothetically" could say that their childhood felt as complete as the child with two parents. (this may not be the case with all children, but could with some)
Same analogy of rich and poor people....
Against. If people want to mutilate themselves then fine but don't make that choice for somebody else.
yup
Well I would never know the difference... ever, so I can't ever compare. So the most pleasurable experience for me is once again 'hypothetically' as pleasurable as the most pleasurable experiences of someone with full skin. Despite the difference in the "theoretical pleasure".
Its a bit like a baby born without a parent... may feel like they have had as complete a childhood as another child with two parents. Even though the child with two parents would theoretically feel twice the love, since the child with one parent never knew a father (or mother figure), the child "hypothetically" could say that their childhood felt as complete as the child with two parents. (this may not be the case with all children, but could with some)
Same analogy of rich and poor people....
It's not theoretical but factual. You lose a whole bunch of nerve ending and your first paragraph is a big jump in logic. "What i feel is what i know so everyone must feel the same" Is basically what you're saying.
Don't get me wrong though, nobody's asking you to feel sad.
It's not theoretical but factual. You lose a whole bunch of nerve ending and your first paragraph is a big jump in logic. "What i feel is what i know so everyone must feel the same" Is basically what you're saying.
Don't get me wrong though, nobody's asking you to feel sad.
I have not said it's the same at all...
I said... to me, its as fulfilling as anyone else's.
It's all to do with perspective.
I don't take the (your word) factual amount into account here, since I can't even imagine the amount of pleasure someone uncircumcised gets (like you cant imagine the edges of an infinite universe), I can say the most fulfilling experience I can achieve, for me, must be as rich as someone who gets 1000000X more pleasure than me. But the beauty of it is that... since I cannot compare, I can take the '1000000X more' out of the equation as say that the experience feels as fulfilling as someone who isn't circumcised. It's very hard concept I think I am coming from, but I think it makes sense.
It is all based on the fact that I can never experience any more pleasure that I have... so the actual factual amount of pleasure anyone else can feel is irrelevant.
I have not said it's the same at all...
I said... to me, its as fulfilling as anyone else's.
It's all to do with perspective.
I don't take the (your word) factual amount into account here, since I can't even imagine the amount of pleasure someone uncircumcised gets (like you cant imagine the edges of an infinite universe), I can say the most fulfilling experience I can achieve, for me, must be as rich as someone who gets 1000000X more pleasure than me. But the beauty of it is that... since I cannot compare, I can take the '1000000X more' out of the equation as say that the experience feels as fulfilling as someone who isn't circumcised. It's very hard concept I think I am coming from, but I think it makes sense.
It is all based on the fact that I can never experience any more pleasure that I have... so the actual factual amount of pleasure anyone else can feel is irrelevant.
Like i said, nobody's asking you to be more happy or more sad but what we're trying to do is prove that circumcision is reductive rather than beneficial.
Like i said, nobody's asking you to be more happy or more sad but what we're trying to do is prove that circumcision is reductive rather than beneficial.
Well after reading a few more sources, it's changed my mind on the whole 'factual sensitivity of the penis'. I have also said that in my last posts.
But I am saying it's kind of irrelevant to someone who is circumcised. and Yes, everyone should have a right to be circumcised, since they will be missing out on those extra skin nerves.
And I don't feel more happy or sad about it... it just feels normal and the right amount.
I could argue that I shouldn't want more senses than I have now... or else I would probably feel like an oversexed dog. :vlol:
I mean since this conversation started, it has got me wondering what havinf an uncircumcised penis feels like... but I could never 'miss it' ? (I may start yearning for it if I dwell on it too long :p)
Well after reading a few more sources, it's changed my mind on the whole 'factual sensitivity of the penis'. I have also said that in my last posts.
But I am saying it's kind of irrelevant to someone who is circumcised. and Yes, everyone should have a right to be circumcised, since they will be missing out on those extra skin nerves.
And I don't feel more happy or sad about it... it just feels normal and the right amount.
I could argue that I shouldn't want more senses than I have now... or else I would probably feel like an oversexed dog. :vlol:
I mean since this conversation started, it has got me wondering what havinf an uncircumcised penis feels like... but I could never 'miss it' ? (I may start yearning for it if I dwell on it too long :p)
You're not making much sense. You wanna re-read what you just wrote or... ?
You're not making much sense. You wanna re-read what you just wrote or... ?
nope, sounds right to me. Grammars a bit floppy, but its 2 in the morning. But I will try explaining further:
Well after reading a few more sources, it's changed my mind on the whole 'factual sensitivity of the penis'. I have also said that in my last posts.
As in... I have read up a bit since posting my first comment today... and I changed my mind on what I said originally.
But I am saying it's kind of irrelevant to someone who is circumcised. and Yes, everyone should have a right to be circumcised, since they will be missing out on those extra skin nerves.
Someone who is circumcised does not need to know what they are missing out on. The rest of that is pretty self explanatory.
And I don't feel more happy or sad about it... it just feels normal and the right amount.
In response to 'no one is asking you to feel more happy or sad about it'... I am saying, it feels normal, that's all it feels. So I can't be more happy or sad about it. Tbh, I don't know what you meant by that?
I could argue that I shouldn't want more senses than I have now... or else I would probably feel like an oversexed dog. :vlol:
As in, if I wanted more stimulation... I could only imagine the feeling... and I made the simile 'like an oversexed dog'
I mean since this conversation started, it has got me wondering what havinf an uncircumcised penis feels like... but I could never 'miss it' ? (I may start yearning for it if I dwell on it too long :p)
As in, I have started to get curious about how my penis would feeling if it was not circumcised since talking to you... but I technically can't ever miss having an uncircumcised penis... since I never had one to begin with. Then I made a light joke saying that If I thought about it too long, I could actually start to yearn for the extra skin, just to feel the pleasure.
Well after reading a few more sources, it's changed my mind on the whole 'factual sensitivity of the penis'. I have also said that in my last posts.
But I am saying it's kind of irrelevant to someone who is circumcised. and Yes, everyone should have a right to be circumcised, since they will be missing out on those extra skin nerves.
And I don't feel more happy or sad about it... it just feels normal and the right amount.
I could argue that I shouldn't want more senses than I have now... or else I would probably feel like an oversexed dog. :vlol:
I mean since this conversation started, it has got me wondering what havinf an uncircumcised penis feels like... but I could never 'miss it' ? (I may start yearning for it if I dwell on it too long :p)
Well after reading a few more sources, it's changed my mind on the whole 'factual sensitivity of the penis'. I have also said that in my last posts.
What do you mean by that?
It might be irrelevant to someone who doesn't know what it feels like to be more pleasured but I'd imagine that you start to wonder "what could've been" after you find out that they basically chopped off a whole bunch of nerve endings that contributed a lot to your pleasure, right? But that wasn't the point, however.
What do you mean by that?
It might be irrelevant to someone who doesn't know what it feels like to be more pleasured but I'd imagine that you start to wonder "what could've been" after you find out that they basically chopped off a whole bunch of nerve endings that contributed a lot to your pleasure, right? But that wasn't the point, however.
I have addressed all of that in the post above, and in my previous posts.
I have addressed all of that in the post above, and in my previous posts.
Well yeah, nobody was trying to make the point that circumcised people should feel sad or miss their foreskin just that it's a reductive procedure whether the person having it realizes it or not so it has very little to no use besides aesthetics so therefore children should get to choose if they want it done or not when they're at an appropriate age(puberty?). What do you want me to say?
Dark Lugia 2
28-06-12, 01:03
Against, coming from someone who is circumcised.
You know what's funny, it seems that most of the people in this thread who are against it are circumcised. That says a lot.
iamlaracroft
28-06-12, 01:11
110% for it.:tmb:
I am circumcised, and I thank god every day.
you thank "god" for creating you in "his image" with a penis and foreskin and then having your parents pay a stranger to touch your baby penis and cut off the foreskin you were born with? that's what you thank god for everyday? :confused:
Well yeah, nobody was trying to make the point that circumcised people should feel sad?
but you did
Like i said, nobody's asking you to be more happy or more sad...
Don't get me wrong though, nobody's asking you to feel sad.
your words. So technically you did bring up the point.
I am not against circumcision for religious purposes only. It's hard to explain. But as selfish as this sounds, under any other circumstance, circumcision should be a choice. I just don't think I have any right to say to my own religion 'what you are doing is wrong' .... since for me, it's the norm.
btw if you are wondering, I class myself as an atheist.
but you did
your words. So technically you did bring up the point.
Oh, I am for free will and choice. I am not against circumcision for religious purposes only. It's hard to explain. But as selfish as this sounds, under any other circumstance, circumcision should be a choice. I just don't think I have any right to say to my own religion 'what you are doing is wrong' .... since for me, it's the norm.
I only brought up the point because you were insinuating that someone else did by going on about how you don't feel any different and how you can't miss something you never had, etc etc. No one actually said that cut people would feel sad or miss their foreskin. Though i did mention in the first few pages that some people do have vague traumatic memories of it happening.
You know what's funny, it seems that most of the people in this thread who are against it are circumcised. That says a lot.Dunno about most, but certainly a few. Another funny thing is that some of the people defending circumcision are uncircumcised themselves, which is strange becuase you'd think that surely if it circumcision is better they would have already had it done themselves?
iamlaracroft
28-06-12, 01:21
I just don't think I have any right to say to my own religion 'what you are doing is wrong' .... since for me, it's the norm.
wow. and this is precisely why we have muslim women being stoned to death for "infidelity" or "speaking out" against their husbands, and why thousands of young girls are forced into polygamist marriages with strangers as victims of sodomy and rape, pumping out baby after baby. Because of mindless sheep who never dare to question the motives and practices of their religion, however horrific and torturous, because "for them, it's the norm."
Just because something is the accepted "norm", does not make it ok.
I only brought up the point because you were insinuating that someone else did by going on about how you don't feel any different and how you can't miss something you never had, etc etc. No one actually said that cut people would feel sad or miss their foreskin. Though i did mention in the first few pages that some people do have vague traumatic memories of it happening.
well the only part which I change my views on is this...
you wrong there... Male circumcision does not in any way even limit masturbation. If anything, it intensify's it, since the most sensitive area is exposed.
Everything afterwards has been the natural progression of the discussion. As a result of your comment
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=6288301&postcount=201
wow. and this is precisely why we have muslim women being stoned to death for "infidelity" or "speaking out" against their husbands, and why thousands of young girls are forced into polygamist marriages with strangers as victims of sodomy and rape, pumping out baby after baby. Becuase of mindless sheep who never dare to question the motives and practices of their religion, however horrific and torturous, because "for them, it's the norm."
Well actually I am atheist... and I don't question the Jewish religion because I see it as being quite a stable religeon... and nothing like those things you described. To speak out against my own religion, it would have to do something more morally wrong than just giving babies the snip. It's controversial, but it doesn't exactly put the religion to shame.
iamlaracroft
28-06-12, 01:29
Well actually I am atheist... and I don't question the Jewish religion because I see it as being quite a stable religeon... and nothing like those things you described. To speak out against my own religion, it would have to do something more morally wrong than just giving babies the snip. It's controversial, but it doesn't exactly put the religion to shame.
:sigh:
please clarify, because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying you're an atheist who has identified with a religion which makes absolutely no sense.
:sigh:
please clarify, because it sounds an awful lot like you're saying you're an atheist who has identified with a religion which makes absolutely no sense.
I am Jewish - through birth. I was born into the Jewish religion, I was brought up in a Jewish School, I find some of the traditions interesting and fun, I identify that I am Jewish... I don't believe in G-d. There.
There is more to a religion than just G-d. I cannot say 'God' because it is rude and offensive to something I don't even believe exists. It's all absolutely crazy. But I have celebrated passover the same way non religious people celebrate Xmas (I also have celebrated Xmas too). Also, the Jewish religion is a crazy one, there are all these weird and wonderful rules here and there. Like men and woman cannot touch each other, and men aren't allowed to listen to woman sing. I don't have a problem with these. It only works within the ultra ultra orthodox though.
My grandad is extremely fascinated with the religion, who loves all the prayers and traditions, invited the Rabbi over for dinner, runs the shul service, but has absolutely no belief in G-d, but still identifies with the religion. No problem with that what so ever.
Well, since we're all sharing info about our penises...
I think being circumcised is awesome... and much better. And yes, I've experienced 'it' both ways. I was circumcised when I was 15 and I've never regreted it. So to each their own I guess.
Well, since we're all sharing info about our penises...
I think being circumcised is awesome... and much better. And yes, I've experienced 'it' both ways. I was circumcised when I was 15 and I've never regreted it. So to each their own I guess.
It amazing that you think it is. :'D
Couldn't possibly comment on that though.
This issue (of circumcising young children for religious reasons) reminds me of a similar issue with denying children professional medical care because of religious beliefs. Why do we impose religion on children? Richard Dawkins had this to say about the idea of Christian/Muslim/Jewish (other than the ethnicity) children:
CULGslK2vrw
you thank "god" for creating you in "his image" with a penis and foreskin and then having your parents pay a stranger to touch your baby penis and cut off the foreskin you were born with? that's what you thank god for everyday? :confused:
Yes, and because of that I look gorgeous naked.:D
Yes, and because of that I look gorgeous naked.:D
Well in the flaccid state both uncut and cut penises look ugly IMO. One looks like a yam and the other looks like a shriveled up mushroom. But when erect they pretty much look the same to me(unless you have a surplus of foreskin).
Well in the flaccid state both uncut and cut penises look ugly IMO. One looks like a yam and the other looks like a shriveled up mushroom. But when erect they pretty much look the same to me(unless you have a surplus of foreskin).I don't know about you, but my penis looks gorgeous in both states.:p
If it weren't against forum rules I'd be stripping for you guys right now.:vlol:
Well in the flaccid state both uncut and cut penises look ugly IMO. One looks like a yam and the other looks like a shriveled up mushroom. But when erect they pretty much look the same to me(unless you have a surplus of foreskin).
In my college... the circumision question came up... and I was nicknamed mushroom man. :vlol:
Uncut ones certainly look better in the flaccid state, but cut ones are easier in the erect state, far less fidgety...
Urgh, stop with the irritating talk. Thank god there's currently a proposal among the mods to ban posts like that.
And what I mean is that you cut guys are easier to handle, especially during oral sex.
One thing I am curious about, however, is why some religions believe that circumcising boys is the right thing to do. Are there any Jewish or Islamic members who can explain the theological origin of the practise? I've read that, in Judaism, it is often said to be a 'token of the covenant' with God, but why was/is cutting off the foreskin chosen to represent a spiritual covenant?
I truly want to understand how it became common practise and why.
Greenkey2: It's believed that the practice originated in Ancient Egypt, and from there influenced the other Middle Eastern cultures, which is how it filtered into the Nomadic tribes, the Semites, and so is still present today Judaism and Islam. Although there seems to have been magical right-of-passage-symbolism attributed to it initially, causing it to become a part of religious practices, it initially originated due to hygene. The Ancient Egyptians (and from them most other Middle Eastern Cultures) where very advanced at the time when it came to issues of hygene, much more so then the Europeans at the time for example. Nowadays, we might not consider it a hygene issue anymore, so it could be argued that circumcision today is truly unnecessary. But back then it revolved around the heat, and these cultures like Egypt dealt with a lot of that. The heat, sweating, bodily fluids, all dripping down and around in that area and then festering can cause a lot of infection. Nowadays we say "Well, just wash and clean everyday", but you have to remember that back then 1) people rarely showered/bathed and 2) when they did it's not like they had our modern day turbo-waterfall-showers blasting down on them to rinse them thoroughly... no, they probably had one pail of water that was very precious to pour one time over their body, and that was that. So, removing an extra "unnecessary" skin from an important reproductive organ which shouldn't get infected, seemed like a smart and healthy idea, and helped them to stay clean. It can be argued that in parts of the world where it isn't as hot as in say the Middle East, circumcision isn't necessary, and this is why we don't find it amongst, say, Northern European tribes.
PS: all this stuff is only in regards to male circumcision. I don't think female circumcision gets to have/deserves an attempt at a rational explanation since it's just based around barbaric sexism and controlling women by taking away their sexual pleasure.
Uncut ones certainly look better in the flaccid state, but cut ones are easier in the erect state, far less fidgety...
Once again, that is a matter of visual taste. Some might also think that cut penises look nice in the flaccid state. ;)
Larua croft
28-06-12, 02:07
Urgh, stop with the irritating talk. Thank god there's currently a proposal among the mods to ban posts like that.
And what I mean is that you cut guys are easier to handle, especially during oral sex.
Agreed
Urgh, stop with the irritating talk. Thank god there's currently a proposal among the mods to ban posts like that.
And what I mean is that you cut guys are easier to handle, especially during oral sex.
Wait what? What you talkin' bout willis?
But the foreskin skins back when erect anyway so i still don't get it? :p
Well, since we're all sharing info about our penises...
I think being circumcised is awesome... and much better. And yes, I've experienced 'it' both ways. I was circumcised when I was 15 and I've never regreted it. So to each their own I guess.
Did you make the decision?
At 15 I should I hope so.
I have to wonder how thoroughly people clean themselves if they see a buildup of smegma after just a few hours though...
I have to wonder how thoroughly people clean themselves if they see a buildup of smegma after just a few hours though...
smeg·ma
noun
a thick, cheeselike, sebaceous secretion that collects beneath the foreskin or around the clitoris.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn125/tearaine/26-3.gif
If I don't have to worry about a cheese-like buildup down there... I guess that's good.
http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn125/tearaine/26-3.gif
Lol we all produce it. It's when it collects in visible amount(nasty ass people that just let the water run) that it becomes a problem and everywhere smells like a fish market on no panties day. :p
interstellardave
28-06-12, 02:44
I'll admit right now that I don't have any information that supports/doesn't support circumcision, so I won't try to argue it either way. In my case it's too late anyway. The only thing I can say is that the view that it shouldn't be decided for the child sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps just letting it go until the boy comes to a certain age and makes an informed choice on his own is the best way to go.
I'll admit right now that I don't have any information that supports/doesn't support circumcision, so I won't try to argue it either way. In my case it's too late anyway. The only thing I can say is that the view that it shouldn't be decided for the child sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps just letting it go until the boy comes to a certain age and makes an informed choice on his own is the best way to go.
You can go back you know, there is some surgery. :p
Did you make the decision?
Yep.
Yep.
Good for you. I think babies are another matter all together.
Good for you. I think babies are another matter all together.
Of course. Every individual should be allowed to decide for themselves, so one could easily say that circumcising a baby boy when he can't give consent is cruel.
Then again, when you have it done as a baby (instead of as a 15 year old teenager) you don't have to deal with the agonizing pain of morning erections and random erections throughout the day whilst it's still healing. :D Now that was fun.
But as I said, I'm still happy I did it and it was worth it.
Of course. Every individual should be allowed to decide for themselves, so one could easily say that circumcising a baby boy when he can't give consent is cruel.
Then again, when you have it done as a baby (instead of as a 15 year old teenager) you don't have to deal with the agonizing pain of morning erections and random erections throughout the day whilst it's still healing. :D Now that was fun.
But as I said, I'm still happy I did it and it was worth it.
YIKES! You had to see my face when i read that.
But yeah, you're right. Most forget what it felt like.
Of course. Every individual should be allowed to decide for themselves, so one could easily say that circumcising a baby boy when he can't give consent is cruel.
Then again, when you have it done as a baby (instead of as a 15 year old teenager) you don't have to deal with the agonizing pain of morning erections and random erections throughout the day whilst it's still healing. :D Now that was fun.
But as I said, I'm still happy I did it and it was worth it.
What are the benefits to it?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.