Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
haha.
To be honest, if it's something that someone wants to do, let them.
As to doing it on babies, if it's part of a religeon you're never gonna stop it, but I do think that it should be voluntary. So I say no to cricumsising babies.
As to doing it on babies, if it's part of a religeon you're never gonna stop it, but I do think that it should be voluntary. So I say no to cricumsising babies.
I never said it would outright traumatize you, I said it could.Suilenroc said:
Also, your subconscious mind is largely out of your perception and control, that's why it called SUBconscious . It's quite possible for something to greatly effected your subconscious mind when you don't even remember it.
If I asked you, why is X your favorite food, why do you like the color X, could you come up with a thorough description of what goes on in your mind when you experienced said thing?
Why is a punch between the legs worse if you are a dude? IT'S NOT THE SAME THING! It's not rocket science here. Circumcision on a woman is worse because the procedure have no benefits, note even make believe ones that us males get, and the consequences are worse.CrystalShadow said:
Equality and feminism isn't about pretending there are no differences between sexes, it's about not forcing differences on people based on stereotypes, tradition or other reasons.
Hi. I'm a feminist. I'm also against both male and female circumcision without the knowing concent of the person it's done on. I would say I consider female circumcision to be the more repulsive of the two.awesomeClaw said:
In the above you can see some sketched examples of FGM. For many women, removal of the clitoris reduces the chance of having orgasm, more so if the mutilation was a traumatic experience. Alongside this, there are no known medical benefits, but plenty of known medical risks. For one, the procedures are rarely if ever performed in sterile environments or with anaesthetic. In small villages the victims often have their wounds 'treated' with milk afterwards which increases the risk of infection. Some women also die from shock and bleeding due to this procedure not to mention the additional risk when it comes to intercourse and childbirth and the psychological impact which sees many refugees uncomfortable with relationships or anxious and skittish.
Add to this the rather horrendous reasons generall argued for the continuation. For example, that it's a necessary part of preparing a girl for adulthood. What the fuck does that say for how one should expect their life to be? Or the other favourite, that it prevents women from having ilicit sexual relationships due to the fear of pain when a narrowed vaginal opening is penetrated. It's the virgin/whore female role dichotomy all over again, but blades are used to enforce it rather than just slut shaming. There are some women who say that they find it a liberating process in that it removes body parts associated with the masculine, hence enabling them to be more pure. Sexism again in my opinion. I just don't see tradition as an excuse for this process. Once a woman is an adult to choose, I can't take issue with that because it's personal choice with her body. As a child or an adolescent? Fuck that.
There are some situations where genital mutilation in men can be a medical prodecure, such as erectile issues and problems with painful growth due to the foreskin being too tight etc. These procedures are carried out with the consultation of doctors and the person in question. For religious reasons I find it just as uncontionable as FGM as both are based on unhealthy sexual negativity and paranoia. As I said before, fuck that.
I'm 32 years old, married, non-religious, and live in Canada. I was circumsized at birth and have no complaints in the area. I enjoy sex, thoroughly, and couldn't imagine it being any more sensitive. Esthetically and hygenically I've always preferred it.
This is why, when the time comes, I'll be having my newborn son circumsized. My wife is in complete angreement with me. There isn't the slightest amount of hesitation on my part.
This is why, when the time comes, I'll be having my newborn son circumsized. My wife is in complete angreement with me. There isn't the slightest amount of hesitation on my part.
I am circumcised; my penis works very well and sex is awesome. All of my girlfriends have told me that they appreciate the fact that I'm circumcised. Do I know what it would be like if I hadn't been circumcised? No. Do I care? Also no. I don't have any opinion at all because it's like wondering how my life would be changed if I was born in February.
A pair of exfoliating mittens is all i've ever needed to keep my uncircumscised penis squeeky clean. Not putting in the effort is just another weakness to character.
Parents should never make nonessential or overtly personal choices for their children, ever.
Governments should never make nonessential or overtly personal choices for anybody, ever.
My answer: "Grown men can choose what to do, but Babies shouldn´t be circumcised"
Governments should never make nonessential or overtly personal choices for anybody, ever.
My answer: "Grown men can choose what to do, but Babies shouldn´t be circumcised"
Ok heres a point I didnt see brought up, despite all the failed comparisons to shaving fingertips etc.
MY DICK WORKS, and so do THOUSANDS, nay MILLIONS of other circumcised penises(penii?), work just fine, no failures at all. Guess what, for thousand of years its been done on a cultural scale.
My point being if it was so traumatic, and so scarring, reducing pleasure etc, we'd have seen a grand scale discrepancy between cultures that predominantly DO and DON'T allow circumcision.
Hell, I would go so far as to posit that a lot of guys who were circumcised and ***** do it because they overestimate the loss in pleasure.
Also, for logic from parental standpoint.
A. For Jews it was a sign of adherence to a covenant God made with Abraham.
B. Christians technically aren't bound to it, we do it because it seems appropriate to stick with the covenant.
C. I know for my part, if I have kids(unlikely), I intend circumcision, and why you ask? Because I understand it best, I am, and thus I can be sure of what challenges my child will and will not face, based on that. I don't suspect a lot of greater issues from not doing so, but I figure I am doing just fine and my kids will as well.
MY DICK WORKS, and so do THOUSANDS, nay MILLIONS of other circumcised penises(penii?), work just fine, no failures at all. Guess what, for thousand of years its been done on a cultural scale.
My point being if it was so traumatic, and so scarring, reducing pleasure etc, we'd have seen a grand scale discrepancy between cultures that predominantly DO and DON'T allow circumcision.
Hell, I would go so far as to posit that a lot of guys who were circumcised and ***** do it because they overestimate the loss in pleasure.
Also, for logic from parental standpoint.
A. For Jews it was a sign of adherence to a covenant God made with Abraham.
B. Christians technically aren't bound to it, we do it because it seems appropriate to stick with the covenant.
C. I know for my part, if I have kids(unlikely), I intend circumcision, and why you ask? Because I understand it best, I am, and thus I can be sure of what challenges my child will and will not face, based on that. I don't suspect a lot of greater issues from not doing so, but I figure I am doing just fine and my kids will as well.
I would rather do it to a baby for a few reasons: The cons listed in the top have not been sourced and as a circumcised male who knows the science behind it I know that the medical benefits are numerous. Babies wont remember circumcision which is indeed a painful but very safe process that is often done without anesthesia (for a good reason, it is dangerous to anesthetize the penis) so it is better done at the age of three months. The baby will cry for an hour then forget it ever happened until he becomes self conscious a few years later. I think that's the best way to do it as the ONLY downside I know of is a rumor that it makes the penis smaller (though that is also unproven).trollnystan said:
Also it is not at all similar to female circumcision, which is a dangerous archaic tribal practice that seriously damages and mutilates the female genitalia permanently and has numerous medical DIS-advantages as compared to a perfectly SAFE archaic practice that is medically beneficial.
Perhaps there is a difference in STD protection but if you are having sex without a condom with someone with an std it will NOT make a difference.
Many people here have expressed SHOCKINGLY uninformed posts, though I can understand why it would be unnerving to an uncircumcised male (the poster of the quote is not particularly misinformed, actually i believe in the rights of the baby which is why i have given actual resons for why it is more humane to do it to babies, take it or leave it. It is a factual argument)
Everyone do your RESEARCH before posting on this topic.
As the Escapist community you have seriously disappointed me here.
Modern circumcision methods have anesthestics involved, eliminating the pain. Plus, their done in your infancy, so it isn't like you remember it at all.
Still doesn't fucking matter, though. Tons of uncircumcised people I know have no problems with still having a foreskin.
Semi-neutral response from a circumcised person.
Still doesn't fucking matter, though. Tons of uncircumcised people I know have no problems with still having a foreskin.
Semi-neutral response from a circumcised person.
That old argument? Why is it comedy when a man's genitals are brutally wracked with a blunt object (aka nutshot) but do likewise to a woman's genitalia and it's vicious and unspeakably evil? Don't get me wrong, I'm on your side, but the genders, regardless of what women say, are imbalanced in their favor. Can a man ultimately decide abortion? Does a man have the final say on when couples have sex? Are men as protected from female sexual predators as women are from male sexual predators? Simply; no, no, and no.awesomeClaw said:
If you want a strong opinion from someone, ask them about penises!
OT: Personally I'm not circumcised, and neither is my brother, or my step-father. In Australia, circumcision is not the norm, but neither is it completely unheard of.
I am of the opinion that circumcision is likely to decrease sensation in the penis, for two reasons.
Firstly, no matter how you look at it, you are removing a part of your penis, and that will have consequences of some kind. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be a loss of sensation, but to me it seems likely.
Secondly, the foreskin acts to protect the glans (the most sensitive part of the penis) from both from dirt and the like (though it's effectiveness is debatable), and prevents the glans from being stimulated when the penis is not erect. To me, the logic goes; if the glans is unprotected, it is likely to be stimulated more often, meaning that the sensation is either going to become commonplace (i.e. not exciting) or you're going to stop interpreting certain stimuli as sexual. This to me suggests that sex will not feel the same, as you would not be experiencing the full range of sensations as a non-circumcised person.
Naturally, these are just my lines of reasoning, and I've done little to no research on the matter. My opinion is biased, being not of the circumcised variety. To me this whole discussion will boil down to socks defending why they are socks, and helmets defending why they are helmets. Also, a few people have tried making the point that one or the other looks weird, and that women consider one or the other weird. This is entirely subjective, but I think you'll find very few women will be 'disgusted' one way or the other. They might have a preference for one or the other, but at best that gives you a 50/50 chance of being their preference. I do know at least one girl who preferred non-circumcised penises (and thought circumcised penises looked weird).
As for female circumcision... I have no defense for it, I think it is an abhorrent act. To me, this is straight up genital mutilation and unlike male circumcision, I cannot see any objective reasons for why it should be carried out.
EDIT: Oh, and somebody asked a question about how 'cut people' fap. One of the pro-circumcision (and I assume circumcised themselves) people responded that we fap in the same way, but this is not strictly true. Non-circumcised men have two choices; they can use their foreskin to fap, or they can use lubricant. It is my understanding that unless they want to risk friction burns, circumcised men require lubrication.
OT: Personally I'm not circumcised, and neither is my brother, or my step-father. In Australia, circumcision is not the norm, but neither is it completely unheard of.
I am of the opinion that circumcision is likely to decrease sensation in the penis, for two reasons.
Firstly, no matter how you look at it, you are removing a part of your penis, and that will have consequences of some kind. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be a loss of sensation, but to me it seems likely.
Secondly, the foreskin acts to protect the glans (the most sensitive part of the penis) from both from dirt and the like (though it's effectiveness is debatable), and prevents the glans from being stimulated when the penis is not erect. To me, the logic goes; if the glans is unprotected, it is likely to be stimulated more often, meaning that the sensation is either going to become commonplace (i.e. not exciting) or you're going to stop interpreting certain stimuli as sexual. This to me suggests that sex will not feel the same, as you would not be experiencing the full range of sensations as a non-circumcised person.
Naturally, these are just my lines of reasoning, and I've done little to no research on the matter. My opinion is biased, being not of the circumcised variety. To me this whole discussion will boil down to socks defending why they are socks, and helmets defending why they are helmets. Also, a few people have tried making the point that one or the other looks weird, and that women consider one or the other weird. This is entirely subjective, but I think you'll find very few women will be 'disgusted' one way or the other. They might have a preference for one or the other, but at best that gives you a 50/50 chance of being their preference. I do know at least one girl who preferred non-circumcised penises (and thought circumcised penises looked weird).
As for female circumcision... I have no defense for it, I think it is an abhorrent act. To me, this is straight up genital mutilation and unlike male circumcision, I cannot see any objective reasons for why it should be carried out.
EDIT: Oh, and somebody asked a question about how 'cut people' fap. One of the pro-circumcision (and I assume circumcised themselves) people responded that we fap in the same way, but this is not strictly true. Non-circumcised men have two choices; they can use their foreskin to fap, or they can use lubricant. It is my understanding that unless they want to risk friction burns, circumcised men require lubrication.
Well, it had its purpose when showers were harder to come by but now, well now it's just pointless unless you are REALLY that lazy, I find it unnecessary, and it bothers me that so many people are ignorant to any truths that they really should know but don't because they've been bullshitted their whole lives, my parents were going to circumcise me but then realised: "Oh this is a baby whose penis we are thinking about having chopped up, hmmm." Nowadays it's just silly.