How do you feel about circumcision?

photog212

New member
Oct 27, 2008
619
0
0
WolfThomas said:
photog212 said:
You lost me...but I'm too tired to play this game anymore. Lets just agree to disagree.
That's fair enough, I wasn't trying to argue simply trying to explain how someone might compare male and female circumcision without it being exaggeration.
No worries, I just get upset/bothered when people act like the two like are the same. Not because I'm pro-male circumcision but because it tends to lessen the horror of female circumcision. I've seen first hand what circumcision can do to a young girl (worked with an NGO) and I don't think people really get how utterly fucked up it is.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
photog212 said:
No worries, I just get upset/bothered when people act like the two like are the same. Not because I'm pro-male circumcision but because it tends to lessen the horror of female circumcision. I've seen first hand what circumcision can do to a young girl (worked with an NGO) and I don't think people really get how utterly fucked up it is.
Oh indeed, it's powerfully messed up.
 

Kenny Kondom

New member
Oct 8, 2009
102
0
0
lithium.jelly said:
I think it's a terrible thing to do to an infant. It should never be performed unless medically necessary.

TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.
Well, do you have a beanie or a helmet?
Wow... stop, please xD... This is a serious topic, dont make me laugh like that!
OT, it should be a personal choice. Wether it is benificial or not, it is a persons human right to choose what happens to their body, if it isnt, then its a form of violation.
Give the information to people straight too. Not BS that doctors can spin. If it can make them money, why would they play it down?
 

sukotsuto

New member
Nov 15, 2007
65
0
0
With the "infant's rights" clause being brought up, I'm surprised abortion haven't been brought up yet. Oh wait I just did lol.
 

Zarmi

New member
Jul 16, 2010
227
0
0
Oh I love how society works today! First of all it's completely acceptable to cut off your dick, apparently. Secondly, everyone knows everything! The most remarkable trademark of this generation, that everyone thinks they know shit. Look up the shit regarding circumcision. I'm personally much against it being done to children, as it should be a choice for the individual.

And really, since when is foreskin bad? You know, if the looks is disliked, hey! It can be pulled back! PROGRESS! Sigh. I don't see the point, why even debate it? If we have to be all for circumcision, we might as well just start mutilating kids more to make up for it! Let's cut off a leg here and there!

For those who can't use their brain, I'm being sarcastic. At least with the last part here. But on a serious note... Why not just... you know... Let the penis stay the way its supposed to be? Just saying. :D
 

The_ModeRazor

New member
Jul 29, 2009
2,837
0
0
WHY DOES THIS THREAD EVEN EXIST OH WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Yeah, that's my opinyuns. I'm also against the whole business of circumcision.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
 

Dimitriov

The end is nigh.
May 24, 2010
1,215
0
0
sukotsuto said:
With the "infant's rights" clause being brought up, I'm surprised abortion haven't been brought up yet. Oh wait I just did lol.
You've just activated my trap card! >:D
 

Adanos

New member
Oct 24, 2009
249
0
0
Circumcision is mutilation. And the foreskin is not useless. Uncircumcised people actualy feel more sensation. And there are more parts removed than foreskin. Here is a complete list

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/7/post/2011/1/what-is-removed-during-circumcision.html
 

sukotsuto

New member
Nov 15, 2007
65
0
0
You all do know that "completely removing the foreskin" is not the only circumcision method, right? There are circumcision methods where they actually keep the foreskin (and simply exposes that "head" more), which seems to be the non-Jewish method. Most of these studies seem to apply to the removal of the foreskin.
 

The Lugz

New member
Apr 23, 2011
1,371
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Female genital mutilation is done to remove a woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure - it isn't merely decorative. The male version would be smashing the testicles to create a eunuch
it is nothing alike, you are comparing sensation with the ability to reproduce women can also have their tubes cut or 'smashed' ....

the point of this is males with removed foreskin DO have reduced pleasure during intercourse due to the 2 million nerve endings you cut in half

the skin is a loop, you've taken the middle bit and cut it out as you would slice a coiled piece of string, there is nowhere for the nerve ending to report to any-more they will eventually die or simply become inert
and that's a best case scenario..

worst case scenario is scarring, deformity and reduced sexual health
these are the documented problems with it :

http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#men

http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#poster


to anyone that thinks it looks better, i tell you i have one and i don't see how removing the skin would improve it the only thing i can see happening is chafing in clothing and dry skin conditions
causing irritation

you realize in use that skin rolls up anyway? and as for cleanliness you can clean it in about 2 seconds with ease.. there is no real difference

i only ask because women do say the damnedest things about male organs
once a girl told me she only liked guys with tight balls not loose ones
and i had to explain that is a healthy reaction when they get hot / cold to protect the sperm
sexual education is sorely lacking these days..

i'm sure guys make equally elementary mistakes too.

Bara_no_Hime said:
I will say again - a clitoris is NOT just skin. It is in no way related to foreskin. It is not a valid comparison. Stop making it. It's offensive.
you're making the same misinformed argument, foreskin conducts over 2 million nerves to the end of the penis, whilst it is not the only sensitive area on the penis by any means it is nice to have it

if you'd really like to see a demonstration,
and you have the stomach for that kind of thing
you can look up 'cbt' and watch men use clothes-pegs and other things to cut off the sensitivity to the tip of their penis, and make themselves orgasm instantly when they take them off because the rush of blood to the nerves is overwhelming

#edit#
I don't recommend trying it, by the way it can't be good for you...
 

Questalace

New member
Aug 9, 2010
70
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Mr.K. said:
I didn't use extremes, just pointing out that circumcision applied to other areas suddenly doesn't make sense.
If cutting skin off a baby is ok why then limit it to penises, if it's really ok we should do as we please.

And to what extent would you really thank your parents for piercings, the entire ear, nose, lips, nipples, clit,... where is the limit? Is there any limit?
You ARE using extremes.

Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.

The body parts you've mentioned are all important. Nipple and clitoral damage is NOT something to joke about. I assume you mean piercing the clitoris or nipple (not cutting it off, which is what I initially got from your post) and my reply to that is that those are not safe to pierce in an infant.

The ear? Sure, why not? I'm not sure what you mean by "the entire ear" - like, cartilage piercings?

The nose - that would likely be a problem for snot reasons.

Again, foreskin removal has no medical downside. Removal or piercing anything but the earlobe would cause permanent, awful damage to a person. It is NOT the same. It is an extreme exaggeration. None of those locations are just skin.

The closest you might be able to get is trimming the ear lobe. It's just empty skin with no purpose. If I had freakishly long earlobes as a baby, and my parents chose to trim them to look more normal, I would be fine with that. It's a little skin that does nothing. No big deal.

I will say again - a clitoris is NOT just skin. It is in no way related to foreskin. It is not a valid comparison. Stop making it. It's offensive.

"Taylor et al. (1996) described the foreskin in detail, documenting a ridged band of mucosal tissue. They stated: "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."[2] In 1999, Cold and Taylor stated: "The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function."[18] Boyle et al. (2002) state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings?many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."[19] The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al. (1996) "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."[20]"

Kinda' states some men are attached to their foreskin, literally, for sexual pleasure as well as it has a higher number of touch receptors. Oh and one more thing:

"It is also described as the prepuce, a technically broader term that also includes the clitoral hood in women, to which the foreskin is embryonically homologous."

Comparing them is offensive? what's wrong with a bit of unity and love where sex is concerned. I find you very offensive.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
Also, considering there's a health risk to the procedure, causing infections and possible death, if it's SOO important to get rid of that useless piece of tissue, why are we not performing appendectomies the moment an infant pops out? The appendix is a useless organ and can burst and kill you later in life, let's get rid of it!

OF course not, because taking a scalpel to a baby isn't something we should do as a matter of course, there should be a genuine medical reason for it, not just a 'well, it might do something, maybe, eventually'.

If it IS cosmetic, and a survey I saw said the main reason is 'to be like the father', lets get the baby any tattoos the father has, reverse liposuction so he has a beer belly, and kill off some hair follicles at the front so he's receding at the age of 3 months.

Just so I'm not being completely one sided, can we stop calling it genital amputation? Even if it's factually correct, it's FOX levels of scaremongering - if you asked a thousand parents if they'd allow their child to undergo 'follicular amputation' in the first year of their child's life, I reckon you'd get a good 900 'no' answers, the rest of em bothering to listen long enough to realise you mean a haircut.
 

Sewora

New member
May 5, 2009
90
0
0
I'm from Sweden, and I'm not circumcised. Most parents and doctors alike refuse to have children circumcised because it's considered a breach of human rights in this (What I consider is) matured part of the world where religions and old beliefs have been tossed out the window in favour of modernization and development.

Circumcision has been proved to be more negative than positive these days. And if you do some research you'd find out that one of the major reasons circumcision has been so widely spread in the US for example is because it was believed to function as a prevention to masturbation amongst children and teenagers. Which at the time was considered bad in itself, and a sign of mental instability.

Circumcision causes alot of negative effects. For example, a man can have an orgasm simply by stimulation of the foreskin, because it's one of the most erogenous zones of the male body.
It also functions to maintain a PH balance and lubrication. Fact is that without a foreskin you're alot less clean than with foreskin.
It also reduces friction during intercourse for both the male and the female.

Contrary to popular belief, the foreskin does in fact fill a function, and without it your glans actually becomes dry and hardened (not to such a degree that it becomes like your heel, but significantly so that an uncircumsized glans is alot softer and smoother.)

And the whole deal about esthetics.. I have never met a single woman here who thinks a circumsized penis looks good, becuase they look odd, mutilated and wrong. It's completely regional depending on what you are used to, not what is actually most esthetic in general.

The benefits of being uncircumsized:
- Lubrication
- Cleanliness
- Less chance of infections and other disease
- Improved sexual sensation
- Erogenous zone
- Easier to masturbate

Circumcizing a child is the equivilent of removing an arm or a leg from a child, simply because you think it's the right thing to do.
And female and male circumsizion IS in fact the same thing. It just seems more cruel when done to women, because you're not used to it. Just like male circumsizion seems incredibly cruel to me and many of the people I know.

Circumcision is rapidly becomming less and less common, and I think it's a good thing that humanity is evolving on a worldwide level.
 

Rawne1980

New member
Jul 29, 2011
4,144
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Bara_no_Hime said:
Ultratwinkie said:
2. I don't remember the pain.
rebuttal: If someone was raped using a roofie, does it matter? Even if they don't remember?
Your logic is equally flawed.

rebuttal: An infant lacks the ability to convert short-term memory into long-term memory. They also heal faster (because they are still growing rapidly) than an adult would. That means that their pain passes more quickly, and is forgotten without becoming a part of their personality.

Whereas rape, even while unconscious, is a terrible and scarring experience due to the feeling of violation. Just knowing you have been raped is terrible, even if an individual can't remember it. Also, even while asleep, an adult brain still records data - it still transfers that data to long-term memory. So even if you're raped in your sleep, part of that experience is retained.

So an infant will truly forget, whereas an adult cannot truly forget. Hence your point is not valid.
See? It still matters. You seem to lack many facts about circumcision by your post above.


Watch that video, it even has sources to back it up.

rsacks said:
Berethond said:
There is absolutely no reason to.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. There are plenty of medical reasons to have a male circumcised:

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_3.pdf

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_4.pdf

These are info packets from the World Health Organization, which I think we can agree upon is a reliable source for this kind of information. I'll tell you to read the links if you want a list of all the health benefits of male circumcision but some of the highlights are:

-Decreases the chance of urinary tract infections of babies/children
-Decreased instances of cervical cancer in female sexual partners
-Ease of penile hygiene leading to fewer infections
-Lower rate of sexually transmitted infections
-Lower rate of penile cancer
-Helps prevent the spread of HIV

Now, I will agree that it is a choice, but I don't think that it should be either illegal or mandatory. I personally am very happy my parents had me circumcised.
Look up. If you actually look into it, there are studies that disprove your assumptions and some of those benefits are not actually benefits at all.
I had an infection when I was 7 and had to be circumcised.

There you go, no assumptions just an absolute fact. Sometimes a person needs it on medical grounds.
 

AWAR

New member
Nov 15, 2009
1,911
0
0
My opinion is that we shouldn't cut parts of our babies' penises, even for religious reasons.
The argument that it looks better is laughable to say the least, I think uncircumsised penises are more aesthitically pleasing and their prominence in arts confirms that.
The fore skin also has thousands of nerve endings so removing it could alter the sexual experience.
The whole thing began because of religious superstition anyhow..
 

Newtonyd

New member
Apr 30, 2011
234
0
0
ninetails593 said:
I think what you're all forgetting is just how horrifying an uncircumcised penis looks like. Circumcision isn't "chopping off body parts", it's just a simple, safe procedure, that the baby will never remember. Hell, it makes him more normal.
That's a whole lot of opinions. Anyway, who cares if a baby's penis supposedly isn't 'pretty' if it's not circumcised. Is it that important? If it's such a simple, safe procedure then let the adult figure it out for themselves around the time they actually want to start using it.

Female circumcision is a more dire mutilation, but who says women need all those folds of labia? They're probably hard to keep clean anyway, so they may as well go.

Right?
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Dimitriov said:
The idiot part was because your argument seemed to be "I think this is wrong, therefore it is wrong for everyone."
That's pretty much my argument (I also have good reasons for thinking it's wrong). How is that idiotic?

Dimitriov said:
I didn't miss your point by the way, I just didn't agree: I don't oppose the other things you listed. If you want to tattoo your child or re-shape their earlobes go nuts.
Fair enough, we just disagree. Would you feel differently had your parents decided to tattoo a big cock on your forehead? Or a swastika? Or am I right to assume you wouldn't like that very much, and would probably undergo painful and expensive treatment to get it removed?

That right there is the core issue. If you're content with not having a foreskin, cool - it's not an issue for you. But you're ignoring the men, however few, that DO care that they're missing a foreskin (imagine your parents had tattooed a cock on your face, to use an analogy). Is it right, is it fair, that those men be forced to pay for a body modification they DO NOT WANT because someone else, with no justifiable reason, elected to change their body whilst they were incapable of resisting?

To use another analogy, imagine there was a guy going around kidnapping women, drugging them, then giving them a nose job or something while they were unconscious. Let's say hypothetically 99% of those women were either in favour of, or impartial to their abduction + "fun cut". Should that be a legal procedure? Should we turn a blind eye to that 1% that suffered because the other 99% don't care? By making it illegal and protecting that 1%, nose jobs aren't being banned. The women that want the nose job badly enough to endure the pain still have every right to get it done (though to make the analogy closer let's say the abductors drugs and method allowed for a significantly less painful and shorter recovery time than other available clinics). Protecting that 1% doesn't deny the rest of them nose jobs, should they elect for them. Can you give ANY reason why we SHOULDN'T protect that 1%?

Dimitriov said:
Well they are petty, but I guess I can forgive you.
How are they petty?

Dimitriov said:
I may have worded that poorly, I for one am more than glad for you to have the freedom to voice your opinion. My issue was that you seemed to want to treat your opinion as if others had to accept it. If you want to say that you think circumcision is wrong, then more power to you.

If on the other hand you want to say it should be made illegal, and want to actively go out and interfere in other people's lives, then I have an issue with it.
And you have that right to take issue, just as I have the right to go out and "interfere in other people's lives". If a child is being abused, the state "interferes" to stop that abuse. Do you agree with that, or do you think parents should have the right to abuse their children? If someone wants to be circumcised, have at it. I have absolutely no problem with someone walking into a hospital and saying "hey Doc, chop my dick off!". That's their choice, they're not harming anyone else, let them do what they want. Where I DO have a problem is people that view their children as their property rather than individuals.

In an ideal world children would share a common education an upbringing, but due to emotional ties between children and their parents and she sheer logistics of it this isn't a realistic proposal. For the sake of practicality I'm ok with letting parents raise their children how they want, despite the unfortunate victims begat by extremist parents and raised in bigotry, hatred and intolerance. For those reasons we can't really protect peoples' minds from being abused, but we can at least protect their bodies. A ban on CHILD circumcision (adults are still free to get the elective procedure if they want it so bad) and other "fun cuts" is the least we can do.
 

CorvusFerreum

New member
Jun 13, 2011
316
0
0
Taditionally it was more hygenic, but in today society it's mostly not an issue. In my eyes it's a mutilation of a person who is to young defend itself and therefore I'm against doing it to children (If there's no medical reason to do so, like phymosis). This especially aplies for the circumcission of girls an young women, which may be Off topic but I don't see a reason not to remind it still exists.

If an adult person wants to do it, he still can do it of course.
 

thePyro_13

New member
Sep 6, 2008
492
0
0
I don't think it's fair to do something so irreversible to a child. Would you tattoo them, because it looks better?

You're removing their ability to choose entirely. Leave it on, they can have it circumcised later if they want, they can't grow it back if they don't take well to it.