Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Ithera]

Ahhhh yes. An outdated "medical" procedure from ancient days given mystical importance. A practice just as outdated as organized religion, and should hold no place in a modern society.

Sadly, humanity being superstitious creatures prone to flights of fancy. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

 

[fleischwolke]

Off with his head!

 

[Sewora]

Utter shit

You are delusional. Do some research on your o-- Oh right, you probably don't even have any foreskin, so you can't really say what's different, now can you? Hm.. Well, that's bit of an issue here now isn't it?

If you wanna know the truth, ask those who didn't have their foreskin amputated. There's no other way to find out.

If the default state is perfectly fine, and the only thing you add by circumsizing is bad things, then you can by logical reasoning figure out that it's not a good thing to circumsize.

Let me repeat, I can retract my foreskin and be circumsized for a day, you can't pull your skin forward and try being uncircumzised. So arguing against people with foreskin whether it's good or not, is pointless and ultimately useless. We already know how it is to have it, and the sensation of not to have it.


To put things easier, if you wanna know what it's like to have two hands, ask someone who has two hands and stop putting all your trust in the research done by the people with one hand.

 

[SciMal]

Utter shit

You are delusional. Do some research on your o-- Oh right, you probably don't even have any foreskin, so you can't really say what's different, now can you? Hm.. Well, that's bit of an issue here now isn't it?

If you wanna know the truth, ask those who didn't have their foreskin amputated. There's no other way to find out.

I have you meathead. Believe it or not, I have friends, and some of them aren't circumcised.

Funny how you didn't address your lack of scientific studies you used to claim the superior experience of the foreskin, or my nearly-dozen studies which says sexual satisfaction isn't affected.

If the default state is perfectly fine, and the only thing you add by circumsizing is bad things, then you can by logical reasoning figure out that it's not a good thing to circumsize.

You don't "add bad things" by circumcising. You add nothing, you take away nothing. It is a zero-sum game in modern society.

You'd know that if you read any of the sources I cited.

Let me repeat, I can retract my foreskin and be circumsized for a day, you can't pull your skin forward and try being uncircumzised.

I suppose... in the same way you can wrap your lips under your teeth and pretend to only have gums.

So arguing against people with foreskin whether it's good or not, is pointless and ultimately useless.

Sort of like the foreskin, hi-oh!

We already know how it is to have it, and the sensation of not to have it.

Am I being trolled? Are you the forum jagoff that everybody else avoids debating with and quietly let harass the newbies as a form of hazing?

To put things easier, if you wanna know what it's like to have two hands, ask someone who has two hands and stop putting all your trust in the research done by the people with one hand.

Hilarious. Next time my brother comes home from the Marines and tells stories about how his buddies got their limbs blown off I'll be able to say, "At least they have their foreskins!" I'm sure they'll appreciate the comparison you've made.

 

[Orekoya]

If no other reason to have a foreskin matters to you, then I will say this. The foreskin double folding skin layers account for roughly 40-50% of the penis's skin. Your penis can only grow as large as the skin available to it. When you circumcising an infant you are effectively making his penis 40-50% smaller than it could be.

Circumcision makes your penis smaller.

There's so much bullshit in this one paragraph you probably shouldn't comment on any biological issue anymore.

I know it may seem strange, but the skin is an organ and grows to meet the needs of the individual. If skin was restrictive in the way you're implying, nobody would be obese. Ever.

Also, penis size does not vary due to circumcision. It varies due to genetic factors and environmental factors, with slight correlations to HEIGHT and ETHNICITY (which are ALSO genetic and environmentally affected quantitative traits).

Alittle arrogant aren't you? So quick to call bullshit without even looking into whether or not any of what I said had merit. Here [http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=350] you [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/health/webmd/main3949777.shtml] go [http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Penis-Is-So-Small---The-Horrors-of-Circumcision&id=2528111]. Skin only grows to an extent and at a staggeringly slow speed which is why the obese have stretch marks. Also the material has to be there in the first place before it can grow to accommodation. Yes, genetics are the determining factor for size, but by cutting off the skin you are limiting the potential size it can grow. Your penis stubs itself to protect itself. If you are lucky. If genetically you have a large penis and circumcised, you may likely not have enough skin for comfortable erections.

If you still think it's all bullshit, then I ask you this: how do you crop/dock dogs? You cut off some skin from the ears/tail. What does it do? Makes the dog's ears/tail a certain shape but it's smaller than what it would've been uncropped/undocked.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I love how these debates stretch out over 14 pages. I also love how anyone who is circumcised seems to get monumentally insecure at the mere suggestion that there might be anything.. not even "wrong", just completely unnecessary.. about cutting off someone's foreskin before they're old enough to consent. I can only imagine it makes a lot of people feel like they've been mutilated but still.. jesus.. calm down, noone is that interested in your penis. You're fine either way, it's not that big an issue, however it's also completely unnecessary.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about circumcision, so here's what I've learned over the years.

* Circumcision became popular in the US about 150 years ago for two reasons, firstly because some doctors claimed it would prevent syphilis transmission (which was epidemic in America at the time), but more importantly because it was believed to prevent masturbation, which at the time was being blamed for practically every sexual "dysfunction" the Victorian mind could catalogue (and that's a fair few).

* Circumcision does have a very slight reported effect on the transmission risk of some STDs. However, this only effects transmission from the "receptive" to the "active" partner, which is the least common type of transmission. If you're a circumcised male, your partner is absolutely no safer.

The differences we're talking about are also so negligably small that they're hardly worth mentioning. I'd suggest with the risk of accident or infection (any open wound can become infected) during the circumcision procedure, you're really no safer either way.

Anyone in any kind of situation where there could be an STD risk needs to wear a condom and wear it correctly. Anyone exposed to HIV needs to try and get PEP within 36 hours. That's the end of it really. Being circumcised will not protect you from anything, so any debate about its utility is fairly meaningless.

* The smegma which forms under a foreskin is not dirt, it's a residue left by the natural cleaning and lubricating agents produced by the body. It's easy to wash off and there's no reason why a circumcised penis should be any cleaner or fresher as long as both owners remember to wash themselves. It's certainly not germy or an infection risk, in fact one of its functions is as an antibacterial agent.

* Some people experience a loss of sensitivity after being circumcised. There are a range of reasons for this, primarily that the foreskin has a lot of nerve endings in and of itself. The loss can vary enormously from person to person, but very rarely impedes sexual function.

* On the other hand, it's much easier to get a glans piercing when you're circumcised, and some people find this helps negate the loss of sensation.

So really.. it's not a big deal either way. Some people also think it looks better, but I find that tends to be cultural. None of my friends in the UK seem to be particularly enamoured with circumcized cocks.

I tend to come down on the side that says you shouldn't modify someone's body out of vanity before they're old enough to consent, and yes that includes piercing your children (although piercing is at least reversable without major surgery). I'm semi-okay with it for religious reasons, and totally okay for medical reasons, but a lot of people seem to come out with complete bullshit about the whole topic and it doesn't fill me with confidence that they're choosing for good reasons.

 

[Terminal Blue]

less likely to get caught in the zipper.

Sorry, I had to laugh at this..

It doesn't hang 3 feet from your body. In many cases it doesn't even cover the entire glans.

 

[kurupt87]

Utter shit

You are delusional. Do some research on your o-- Oh right, you probably don't even have any foreskin, so you can't really say what's different, now can you? Hm.. Well, that's bit of an issue here now isn't it?

If you wanna know the truth, ask those who didn't have their foreskin amputated. There's no other way to find out.

If the default state is perfectly fine, and the only thing you add by circumsizing is bad things, then you can by logical reasoning figure out that it's not a good thing to circumsize.

Let me repeat, I can retract my foreskin and be circumsized for a day, you can't pull your skin forward and try being uncircumzised. So arguing against people with foreskin whether it's good or not, is pointless and ultimately useless. We already know how it is to have it, and the sensation of not to have it.


To put things easier, if you wanna know what it's like to have two hands, ask someone who has two hands and stop putting all your trust in the research done by the people with one hand.

Don't be dense, the man makes perfect sense.

You do not know what it's like be circumcised. A circumcised head and a non-circumcised head even look different, not to mention the physiological differences.

His points are rational, even though I disagree with his conclusion.

@SciMal
Using his conclusion; female circumcision, removal of the clitoral hood/labia and not the clitoris, would be ok because it had been done in the past and is part of the culture.

Lube would be used by all these now modern women during sex and there wouldn't be much difference during the act. You'd even get most women protecting it saying it looks nicer and they like the lube.

 

[Raven_Operative]

Exactly. The doctors would freak out if after a child's birth, the parents wanted to cut off part of the baby's earlobe, or the tip of its nose. So why is a penis any more tolerable? Just because members of a widely-accepted religion do it is -not- a sufficient response.

Actually, there is a reason to do it aside from religion. It makes it much easier to keep your wang clean and therefor is beneficial to your hygiene.

http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

 

[Terminal Blue]

Using his conclusion; female circumcision, removal of the clitoral hood/labia and not the clitoris, would be ok because it had been done in the past and is part of the culture.

Lube would be used by all these now modern women during sex and there wouldn't be much difference during the act. You'd even get most women protecting it saying it looks nicer and they like the lube.

To be fair, they'd suffer a far greater loss of sensation even from that than the average circumcised man. The clitoral hood is very sensitive in and of itself.

Not that I don't agree with the point. This is the argument used to defend FGC, and in fact once you dig into it it becomes a surprisingly muddy water. A lot of why we see it as abhorrent is because we read it as evidence of oppression or misogyny against women and girls, whereas actually most people who advocate it and perform the procedure are women who see it as an initiation ritual into the rewards and perks of adult womanhood.

"It's just part of our culture" isn't an argument of itself. Cultural practices still need to justify their existence.

 

[Raven_Operative]

Off with his head!

OMG Hilarious man, hilarious!

 

[Raven_Operative]

Also it's not that hard to keep an uncicrumcised penis clean.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

 

[Daffy F]

It can help it keep clean, but I'd say keep it unless there is a genuine issue with having it remain (such as a few uncommon medical conditions that require circumcisions).

 

[Daffy F]

If no other reason to have a foreskin matters to you, then I will say this. The foreskin double folding skin layers account for roughly 40-50% of the penis's skin. Your penis can only grow as large as the skin available to it. When you circumcising an infant you are effectively making his penis 40-50% smaller than it could be.

Circumcision makes your penis smaller.

There's so much bullshit in this one paragraph you probably shouldn't comment on any biological issue anymore.

I know it may seem strange, but the skin is an organ and grows to meet the needs of the individual. If skin was restrictive in the way you're implying, nobody would be obese. Ever.

Also, penis size does not vary due to circumcision. It varies due to genetic factors and environmental factors, with slight correlations to HEIGHT and ETHNICITY (which are ALSO genetic and environmentally affected quantitative traits).

Alittle arrogant aren't you? So quick to call bullshit without even looking into whether or not any of what I said had merit. Here [http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=350] you [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/health/webmd/main3949777.shtml] go [http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Penis-Is-So-Small---The-Horrors-of-Circumcision&id=2528111]. Skin only grows to an extent and at a staggeringly slow speed which is why the obese have stretch marks. Also the material has to be there in the first place before it can grow to accommodation. Yes, genetics are the determining factor for size, but by cutting off the skin you are limiting the potential size it can grow. Your penis stubs itself to protect itself. If you are lucky. If genetically you have a large penis and circumcised, you may likely not have enough skin for comfortable erections.

If you still think it's all bullshit, then I ask you this: how do you crop/dock dogs? You cut off some skin from the ears/tail. What does it do? Makes the dog's ears/tail a certain shape but it's smaller than what it would've been uncropped/undocked.

Only because you actually cut parts of their ears off. They still grow to the same size, just minus the bits you had chopped off. The same goes for the foreskin.
(Not advocating the docking of ears or tails though, I think it's barbaric)

 

[Raven_Operative]

Also it's not that hard to keep an uncicrumcised penis clean.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

Do you really think cleanliness is an issue? Its a non issue. Even with kids, its a stupid "benefit." This fear of what could happen with a foreskin is overblown. The same kind of overblown fear that makes people scared of non Christians.

Overblown fear means there is in fact something to be overblown.

It should be a relatively well know fact that if you don't clean something well it will probably get disease or start to deteriorate.

 

[Sewora]

I'm so tired of the bullshit about cleanliness. The foreskin keeps it clean! What is so god damned hard to understand? It serves the same purpose as the eyelids. To keep crap from getting in and destroying the pH balance.

And IF you are so ignorant that you think it's filthier because it's covered, it only takes a millisecond to retract the foreskin. No matter how you argue, you will still be grabbing your penis when you clean it. An extra microsecond of work to do shouldn't matter unless you're the laziest bastard on the planet.

US is the only modern country in the world that has circumsizion as a standard procedure.
That should mean the rest of the world has filthy disgusting penises... We really do?
Well then.. I suppose all the research, experience and knowledge of the world is wrong, oh well... Sorry, we'll try to be more like the third world to appease your illusion of perfection and start violating the rights of children because we think their penises are better off mutilated!

 

[Sewora]

Also it's not that hard to keep an uncicrumcised penis clean.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

Yet I've never heard of a 10 year old child in this part of the world goes to the hospital for penile problems.. I wonder why.
I have never read or heard it being an issue at all, and my mother is a former nurse.
I also have 6 brothers, all of which are uncircumsized. And none of us has ever had any issues with our penises. We have to be a freak-case family I suppose.

 

[Raven_Operative]

Also it's not that hard to keep an uncicrumcised penis clean.

But how many kids under the age of 10 do you know that are always squeaky clean? Sure it isnt hard to, but most kids probably wont care.

Do you really think cleanliness is an issue? Its a non issue. Even with kids, its a stupid "benefit." This fear of what could happen with a foreskin is overblown. The same kind of overblown fear that makes people scared of non Christians.

Overblown fear means there is in fact something to be overblown.

It should be a relatively well know fact that if you don't clean something well it will probably get disease or start to deteriorate.

Overblown fear is making nothing into something. Its like the damn "terror" scare. Do you really think the moment you step outside someone will fly a plane into your house? Do you really think that zombies will attack your house screaming "allah akbar?" Do you really believe everything is out to get you? That is irrational fear.

Its not that fragile. It will not get infected that easily. Sure, you need to clean it but this mentality of "if its dirty for ONE SECOND it will make me burst into flames" is stupid fear mongering. Hell, the "issues" only effect a meager portion of the population. Hardly something to be so scared of.

Wow... Your just taking what I said and blowing it completely out of proportion.

I never said that if it was dirty for 1 second it would burst into flames, what I was saying is that if it is dirty for an extended period of time, the likely hood of deterioration starts to increase.

Also, sure there were some "terror scares", but that doesn't stop the government from protecting the country from them. Better safe than sorry is a good rule to go by. Personally, (although this may be because I have no manner of luck whatsoever)I would rather have a small bit of skin chopped off the end of my dick than have the possibility of it getting a disease because when i was young, i took a bath about once a month. Simply put, I was an idiot when i was young, and i refuse to believe i'm no the only one out there who was like that.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweigh_the_risks.html

You used Brian Morris as a reference. Your argument is invalid.

http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris

 

[SciMal]

Alittle arrogant aren't you?

Yes, I am. It comes from being a Scientist and having to deal with bullshit on a daily basis from everybody who thinks subjective experiences somehow compromise Scientific Fact.

So quick to call bullshit without even looking into whether or not any of what I said had merit. Here [http://www.glorialemay.com/blog/?p=350]...

Okay, after nearly an hour of scouring the net, I found the study this blog is referencing:

"Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis." Venereology 1995; 8(2):77-81.

The study was actually about analyzing a method to accurately measure the penis for condom sizes, and had absolutely nothing to do with the causative effects of circumcision. They mention the correlation (which is not causation) once, without statistical analysis, and it is never brought up again in any other journal I can find.

You should note that Christopher Fletcher, M.D. - the person you find quoted all over Google - did not actually perform the study.

Other things I noticed:
-The study also correlates condom use to penis size. Condom use declined for narrower penises.

In the end, I'm forced to conclude that Christopher Fletcher's quote is derived from him taking the information wildly out of context and prescribing his own bias to it.

Sorry mate, it just doesn't say what you think it does.

you [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/health/webmd/main3949777.shtml]

This article doesn't mention the foreskin at all, and doesn't correlate circumcision to any dysfunctions or malformations. It mentions that flaccid length doesn't correlate to erect length, and that the penis has a "boomerang" shape to it because it's only partially external.

Useless.

go [http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Your-Penis-Is-So-Small---The-Horrors-of-Circumcision&id=2528111].

This is an ad for Penis Enlargement Exercises. It's only one step above junk-mail because it references the aforementioned Venerology article.

Useless.

Skin only grows to an extent and at a staggeringly slow speed which is why the obese have stretch marks.

I wouldn't call it staggeringly slow; skin cells have fairly high turnover rates (from days to weeks, usually).

You're also missing the point: You said that the lack of foreskin causes penises to grow less than they would otherwise because of mumblesomethingblarghdybloo.

This is simply false. The skin doesn't restrict the size of anything, and is the most malleable organ in the body. Blood flow will restrict penis size before skin. You can always make more skin, but at some point the amount of blood in an erect penis will cause the man to pass out.

Also the material has to be there in the first place before it can grow to accommodation.

This sentence is a tautology. "The skin has to be there before it can grow." ==> "The skin must exist to exist."

You seem to think that the foreskin is either completely intact at birth and simply expands like an accordion as you reach adulthood instead of growing along with the child, or that there's an upper limit on the size it can reach due to the "slow growth" of the skin.

Both are false.

Yes, genetics are the determining factor for size, but by cutting off the skin you are limiting the potential size it can grow. Your penis stubs itself to protect itself. If you are lucky. If genetically you have a large penis and circumcised, you may likely not have enough skin for comfortable erections.

There's no physiological evidence to confirm anything you just said. At all. You are essentially saying that muscles shouldn't be able to get as large as they do in body-builders because the skin on the arm should restrict their size.

I'm sorry, your assertion is just wrong.