Poll: Circumcision

[Spartan Bannana]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

I'm not gay, there's not a high chance I'll be getting HIV that way.

Woah. Ok. Someone's still living in the 80s. I don't wanna burst your little right-wing bubble but in the 21st century there's such a thing as HIV among the heterosexual community.

Yes, but it's only hereditary and transmitted through blood.
Neither of my parents have HIV, I don't do heroine, I'm not going to be a doctor/butcher when I grow up, and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

 

[Aries_Split]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

I'm not gay, there's not a high chance I'll be getting HIV that way.

Woah. Ok. Someone's still living in the 80s. I don't wanna burst your little right-wing bubble but in the 21st century there's such a thing as HIV among the heterosexual community.

Yes, but it's only hereditary and transmitted through blood.
Neither of my parents have HIV, I don't do heroine, I'm not going to be a doctor/butcher when I grow up, and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

In men, HIV can enter the body through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis)

It's a common misconception there has a to be a cut or open wound on the head of the penis for the virus to spread. It isn't only semen and blood transmission, it's also in vaginal secretions.
Sorry for the gross knowledge btw.

 

[DirkGently]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

I'm not gay, there's not a high chance I'll be getting HIV that way.

Woah. Ok. Someone's still living in the 80s. I don't wanna burst your little right-wing bubble but in the 21st century there's such a thing as HIV among the heterosexual community.

Yes, but it's only hereditary and transmitted through blood.
Neither of my parents have HIV, I don't do heroine, I'm not going to be a doctor/butcher when I grow up, and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

In men, HIV can enter the body through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis)

It's a common misconception there has a to be a cut or open wound on the head of the penis for the virus to spread. It isn't only semen and blood transmission, it's also in vaginal secretions.
Sorry for the gross knowledge btw.

Thanks for beating me to it.

Short version: You bang someone with the HIV without a condom, you're likely to get the HIV.

Also, urination post-coitus is likely to kill or expel the HIV.

Protip: Take a leak after sex. It's good for you. Showers as well.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

England here and no. Guess it's an American thing. I suppose the general consensus over here is: "Why? Why would you do that (barring religious and medical grounds)? No social stigma because it's the norm.
If what you say about attitudes in the US is true I find it worrying that a whole country thinks not cutting a piece of your dick off makes you dirty and disgusting. Although without wanting to be condescending, maybe you're just being a bit of a paranoid teenager. Seriously, if a girl wants your dick she's not going to worry about wether you're circumcised or not, would you turn a girl down because you didn't think her vagina looked the way you wanted it to?

 

[Aries_Split]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

I'm not gay, there's not a high chance I'll be getting HIV that way.

Woah. Ok. Someone's still living in the 80s. I don't wanna burst your little right-wing bubble but in the 21st century there's such a thing as HIV among the heterosexual community.

Yes, but it's only hereditary and transmitted through blood.
Neither of my parents have HIV, I don't do heroine, I'm not going to be a doctor/butcher when I grow up, and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

In men, HIV can enter the body through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis)

It's a common misconception there has a to be a cut or open wound on the head of the penis for the virus to spread. It isn't only semen and blood transmission, it's also in vaginal secretions.
Sorry for the gross knowledge btw.

Thanks for beating me to it.

Short version: You bang someone with the HIV without a condom, you're likely to get the HIV.

Also, urination post-coitus is likely to kill or expel the HIV.

Protip: Take a leak after sex. It's good for you. Showers as well.

Very true, but it's in no way a garuentee that you won't get the virus.
Bottom Line:Use a condom.

 

[stompy]

vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

I remember reading some poster in my PDHPE class where it explained, with diagrams (illustrated, of course), how HIV is transmitted. If I remember correctly, during vaginal intercourse, the penis gets several microscopic cuts, which the HIV virus uses to infect the male.

 

[Scary_Bob]

I'm from the UK and uncircumcised. There have been many studies for and against circumcision over the years with the net result showing absolutely no difference. The same goes for pleasure during intercourse.
I'm still glad I have the option to be circumcised and that it wasn't taken away from me at a very young age. I have no problem at all with circumcision but I believe it should be down to the individual to decide, not their parents.
Also, I'm glad that being uncircumcised carries no stigma with the ladyfolk in the UK. Though admittedly it might help lower our teenage pregnancy rates.

 

[megapenguinx]

I am not, and never will be. I actually don't see the drawback to having foreskin.

 

[Jenny Creed]

My opinion on circumcision: It's cool that you're sacrificing your highest erotic sensitivity in order to last longer for the ladies. I don't particularly like it, I'm of the philosophy that intense feelings are better than prolonged ones, but a lot of partners would thank you.

That's all. My opinion on those who force the procedure on children who have no capacity to understand the decision made for them, or that on people who force it on women in order to deny them pleasure, is different. And probably obvious.

 

[DirkGently]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

I'm not gay, there's not a high chance I'll be getting HIV that way.

Woah. Ok. Someone's still living in the 80s. I don't wanna burst your little right-wing bubble but in the 21st century there's such a thing as HIV among the heterosexual community.

Yes, but it's only hereditary and transmitted through blood.
Neither of my parents have HIV, I don't do heroine, I'm not going to be a doctor/butcher when I grow up, and vaginal intercourse doesn't usually cause laceration, statistically, my chances of getting HIV are very low.

In men, HIV can enter the body through the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis)

It's a common misconception there has a to be a cut or open wound on the head of the penis for the virus to spread. It isn't only semen and blood transmission, it's also in vaginal secretions.
Sorry for the gross knowledge btw.

Thanks for beating me to it.

Short version: You bang someone with the HIV without a condom, you're likely to get the HIV.

Also, urination post-coitus is likely to kill or expel the HIV.

Protip: Take a leak after sex. It's good for you. Showers as well.

Very true, but it's in no way a garuentee that you won't get the virus.
Bottom Line:Use a condom.

Better Bottom Line: Pick who you sleep with, stalk them, steal a blood sample, and get it tested. Then sleep with them. And use a condom anyway.

 

[Doug]

I was born in Russia, and I don't believe the circumcision is a normal thing to do there. Or in Europe, but I might be wrong there.

So yeah, I'm not.

I don't see a point in cutting off, pretty much, a piece of yourself, especially in such a sensitive area for yourself... and especially for your own kids. What kind of a maniac would do that?

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Also... You know, I doubt that anyone would care whether you're circumcised or not by the time you get close enough to someone to get into their pants. I mean, really, if they do, the whole "relationship" isn't worth it.

There is nothing freaky about it, probably most of the world is uncircumcised. Both males and females, of course. Female circumcision seems even nastier.

Agreed and quoted for the truth.

And yeah, its not normal here in Europe. Americans either past or present seemed to have a pseudo-science idea that is somehow makes them less likely to get STDs.

Frankly, I'm shocked that a nation that apparently is based on freedom and choice would remove that choice about such a personal thing from there own kids. Its not like a vaccine or anything that has no negative side affects, and can really save a child's live.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I'm not circumsized and I wouldn't ever consider it. We've evolved to have foreskin and I trust evolution! The other reason being that I imagine it being immensely uncomfortable without foreskin.

 

[Saul B]

Okay this is a bit of a weird topic but...

There are several reasons why a parent would want their child circumcised.
1. Religious reasons
2. Cleanliness (not that if you haven't been circumcised you aren't clean, as long as you wash regularly, it doesn't matter)
3. Medical reasons

Circumcision for the third is simply because the foreskin cannot be pulled back properly. If the person is not circumcised at a young age, they can experience severe discomfort during... certain activities. It is perfectly normal and OK - If you have been circumcised then usually you don't care about it.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Am I so wrong in grinning childishly every time someone talks about drawbacks of the foreskin?

Anyways, I'm in the UK and I'm not 'cut' as some people put it, and while it's been a surprise occasionally, I've never had a really bad reaction.

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Also... You know, I doubt that anyone would care whether you're circumcised or not by the time you get close enough to someone to get into their pants. I mean, really, if they do, the whole "relationship" isn't worth it.

I'll agree with this too, I just more people would hang on a few hours to decide if they really liked someone enough to maybe find out their surname before they hop on. I'm not saying casual sex is wrong, but just that imo something with an emotional bond is better.

I'm not saying there's gotta be love, but even 'fuck buddies' is a step up from taking home the last drunk from that club, just because you're bored of your own hand or out of batteries.

Anyways, not wishing to derail, casual sex is a whole new topic.

 

[Doug]

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Sorry to jump in there, Gormourn, but recently it's been found that being circumcised reduces the risk of catching HIV, as the virus attacks the cells in the foreskin. It still doesn't make you immune though.

Meh, there have been several studies based on African populations where a) HIV/AIDs is sadly common, and b) several tribes in the same countries have different cultural views on the practise. Sometimes these studies conclude that there is a benefit, other times a drawback, still further times, no difference at all.

To quote wikipedia:
"The origin of the theory that circumcision can lower the risk of a man contracting HIV is disputed. Since the idea was first mooted, over 40 epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection. Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV."

Basically, if there really is a protective effect of circumcision against HIV/AIDs, its about as helpful as papermache armour against bullets - you are technically safer, but not by much. Condoms are far more effective, reducing the transmission rate by up to 50%. Still not perfect, but it would be enough to stem the grown of HIV/AIDs in Africa if the Catholic church wouldn't keep interferring and they would just use the damned things.

 

[blindhelix]

Let's face it, you can keep yourself clean and that's right and healthy, but it ain't ever going to be a thing of beauty (if you'll forgive the pun), so why worry about aesthetics?

http://www.norm-uk.org/ Worth a read...

 

[Doug]

Am I so wrong in grinning childishly every time someone talks about drawbacks of the foreskin?

Anyways, I'm in the UK and I'm not 'cut' as some people put it, and while it's been a surprise occasionally, I've never had a really bad reaction.

And based on the medical studies, there is no advantages of circumcision. It just seems like a rather barbaric, and possibly scarring practice.

Also... You know, I doubt that anyone would care whether you're circumcised or not by the time you get close enough to someone to get into their pants. I mean, really, if they do, the whole "relationship" isn't worth it.

Agreed and quoted for the truth.

And yeah, its not normal here in Europe. Americans either past or present seemed to have a pseudo-science idea that is somehow makes them less likely to get STDs.

Frankly, I'm shocked that a nation that apparently is based on freedom and choice would remove that choice about such a personal thing from there own kids. Its not like a vaccine or anything that has no negative side affects, and can really save a child's live.

I'll agree with this too, I just more people would hang on a few hours to decide if they really liked someone enough to maybe find out their surname before they hop on. I'm not saying casual sex is wrong, but just that imo something with an emotional bond is better.

I'm not saying there's gotta be love, but even 'fuck buddies' is a step up from taking home the last drunk from that club, just because you're bored of your own hand or out of batteries.

Anyways, not wishing to derail, casual sex is a whole new topic.

Well, casual sex is a person's choice. But they have to realise they are taking a risk and have to deal with the results if it goes pear-shaped. Basically, serial or single monogamy and condoms (at least, in the early stages of a relationship) are the best ways to avoid STDs (although not fool proof - the other party(ies) might cheat, I'm sorry to say). Not chopping mini-Doug!

 

[Doug]

Let's face it, you can keep yourself clean and that's right and healthy, but it ain't ever going to be a thing of beauty (if you'll forgive the pun), so why worry about aesthetics?

http://www.norm-uk.org/ Worth a read...

Nice link.

By the turn of the century, amputation of the foreskin was "scientifically proven" to cure and prevent malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease.

Ok, thats just...well, ok, madness!

In reality, non-religious circumcision is being perpetuated for a number of reasons: ignorance, arrogance, perversion, general disregard for patients' bodies, denial (perhaps because the surgeon is himself circumcised), and, in some countries, profit for the commercially motivated who can get paid both for the surgery and for 'donating' the amputated foreskin for research.

Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children. [Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.]

Ok, thats just scary!

 

[sanomaton]

Basically, if there really is a protective effect of circumcision against HIV/AIDs, its about as helpful as papermache armour against bullets - you are technically safer, but not by much. Condoms are far more effective, reducing the transmission rate by up to 50%. Still not perfect, but it would be enough to stem the grown of HIV/AIDs in Africa if the Catholic church wouldn't keep interferring and they would just use the damned things.

Agreed, why does the church have to keep getting involved in matters they don't know anything about anyway? Okay, they probably do know about some 'stuff' but the Pope probably never has even had sex so how can he forbid people from using condoms?! I just don't get it, neither does my dad. We had a candid conversation with my dad the other night and he agreed with me 100 %, "He can preach about religion, I don't mind about that, but leave the things you don't know about to the people who do!"

Sorry for my offtopic rant but that subject just makes me hit the roof. Back to the topic now, I'm a female from Finland, and no I haven't been circumcised. I don't really care whether a guy has been circumcised or not, it doesn't make that much of a difference in the end anyway. I actually find it quite surprising over half of the American boys are circumcised! Why, why do they do that? Unless it's for a medical reason, such as the foreskin being too tight and causing problems that way, I find no sensible reason for it to be done.

And as for female circumcision... I feel like crying everytime I read about female circumcision. It's horrible, it has no medical advances and bloody hell a girl can die because of it! I would never have my future children circumcised, the only time I would allow it if it was for medical reasons.

 

[IchStrafenDich]

I'm an American (cut), but I was educated in a properly archaic English boarding school. None of my housemates were cut, and the girls we knew seemed to prefer cut guys for reasons many and varied. At some point in my senior year, before going off on a road trip, all the other lads in my year did the research, read the scary stories and laughable outrage and en-masse decided to have the procedure. Two years on, none of them regret it. Is the foreskin really such a massive inconvenience?

I find it hilarious how many people are commenting on the nature of subjective experiences they personally do not have (Dirk Gently). I've been circumcised since before I can remember, and my genitals lack no sensitivity, but I wouldn't have the arrogance to describe what it feels like to have a foreskin. Human feelings and sensation being tricky to quantify or discuss objectively, it seems like everybody should pause a moment before opening their gobs, because you can't just read an article and assume you have reliable, or even substantial, knowledge of an issue like this. You can only really know what you experience, and even then you have to account for what you are used to, so unless you've possessed multiple penises of varying degrees of foreskinned-ness and have been able to compare their relative sensitivity your entire life, you don't really have sufficient epistemological qualifications to weigh in on this topic. All anybody can contribute is another opinion, at which point it becomes a matter of counting 'Yea' and 'Nay' votes, which is great for democracy but crap for meaningful discussion.

TL;DR stfu.

Oh, and hi. I'm new.