Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Long story short... I can jerk off just fine without my foreskin.
I have absolutely ZERO problems getting a boner, penetrating a woman isn't hard either (unless she is super tight... but that's an entirely different issue), as for 'reducing female orgasms'... MOST women don't orgasm from penetration anyway... but when I have gotten the ones that do, well... there's no issue there either.
So, your argument sucks. lol

It is not an argument it is a scientifically tested and if you bothered to go back to page 3 you would have seen all the links.

I said it decrease erectile dysfunction rates so unless you are in your 60s that doesn't apply, "normal" penetration with a circumcised penis is harder as the foreskin folding back does aid in penetration I never said it was difficult or impossible, that is relative to the woman but once again it was shown that it was tested and they came to a conclusion that this was the problem.

So it is not an argument it is stuff that I have provided citations for if you want to go back a couple of pages and it would be nice if you actually had numbers to back up most women don't orgasm from sex. That can just be the person or bad performance or both.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

i can understand from a religious point of view of the parent, but until they get older i think the boy/man should decide.
Although...................it does have hygiene benefits and helps against certain infectious bacteria.

Edit: Also, sometimes during sex the foreskin can rip a little so that might be a reason for a man to decide to "snip snip"

Nah. Ever since we figured out how to provide ourselves with water flowing from taps, proper personal hygiene and not let little boys and girls turn into scruffy bastards, the dick cheese and maggot infestations should be pretty much no problem these days. Religion has its place, and I fully support foreskin removal if an individual develops issues, but religious snippedidoodah without any proper medical reasonings behind it are basically just stupid and barbaric. The male funstick is a wonderful thing, and so far I haven't met a circumcised willie who wasn't to some degree desensitized or utterly dysfunctional, and I am talking about members of at least three major world religions. My stance is this: Your God may or may not be my G-D, but he put that foreskin there for a reason.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

If we say no circumcision we're basically saying it's illegal to observe religious tradition and that's a slippery slope, I mean it could easily turn into making it illegal to build mosques or own a bible

If I say my religious belief tells me to kill all infidels, should it be made legal? The slippery slope is in the opposite direction: allowing evil under the guise of freedom of belief.

 

[HeavenSmile]

OT: I don't believe that parents should be allowed to decided on the issue of circumcision for their kid; whether it be medical or religious reasons. We could go back and forth all day arguing over pros and cons on this issue. "Because god says so....It'll help keep his genitalia cleaner(like it's hard to replace soap and water for lotion or spit)...the opposing sex finds it unappealing."

The matter of the issue being the problem of free choice. Now I haven't had foreskin in my life to have an attachment to my ever lovable body, but I'm sure if the foreskin were around for me to acknowledge; I would have a better understanding of whether or not circumcision is the most practical choice.

Just rather bummed that i'll never get to ponder the decision of chopping a piece of dick off..........

 

[ks1234]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Do a quick google search and general consensus is only 25-30pct of women can orgasm during intercourse... foreskin or not.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

Well, speaking as a person who's had circumcision (circumcision-ee?), I can say that indeed, it is better in terms of hygine (and only that, really). How do I know? Well, I had mine when I was about second grade, and thank fuck I didn't get it because of simplicistic religious reasons. I had a... Well, let's call it a skin condition, I won't get into it, but circumcision was my only way out of it. Yeah, it was painful as hell, and I still remember it, for all the suffering it brought me, and continued to bring me until my wound healed-up. But, in the end, was it worth it? Considering that there are less virtues to it, then vices, I'd say no. Yes, it's more hygenic, but on the other hand it's a pretty fucked-up expirience, and it really brands you for life. And from what I've heard, people with circumcision tend to feel less pleasure from sex, due to having the upper skin of their penis removed, and that's where most of the receptors are - so, to hell with that! Plus, people who do it for a religious reason, are idiotic mongrols in my opinion, because submiting your child to the horror, especially if he's old enough to remember it, is on the same level as actually scarring him for life, and I don't believe in that whole 'whatever doesn't kill you blah blah' bullshit - it's true, but whatever doesn't kill you, has gotten pretty close to that, and that's never good! And even if it isn't self-aware enough to know why his pee-pee is missing a topl layer, it's still pretty emberassing, and once they find out... Let's just say it'll closely resemble the feeling of finding out that you're adopted (not that I know what that feeling is, but shut-up, made my point).

Well, I think the message you put out was the fact that you were two, and cognative when you underwent this, that alone could have skewed your vision of a circumcision just a bit, simply because you actually remember having your foreskin removed. I am circumcised, and quite frankly, I don't care, because my foreskin wasn't around long enough for me to really give a crap about it. That might have changed if I had a foreskin, or if I had it, then it was removed when I was little, but most people don't miss what they never had time to even know about. Just an opinion though, and I am sorry you had to go through so much pain when you were young.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Not really. If you want the debate to be that then it is or you can actually look at genuine cons and pros about both situations which I have linked to many of them near the top of the page. All circumcision does is make hygiene easier unless it is necessary and creates other problems like more difficult penetration, more difficult masturbation, higher rates of erectile dysfunction, etc.

I'm circumcised and I've never had any problems with any of those. From what I've seen here, the uncircumcised group is disgusted with the concept of circumcision and finding whatever online survey, Fox News report, or urban legend they can dig up to prove their case, while the circumcised group seems to have no complaints at all and are perfectly comfortable with it.

To my perspective, that says one group is confident with itself, and the other is fear-mongering.

Once again just as above I am not saying it is not possible just it is harder. Just because it is not debilitating does not mean it would not be easier with a foreskin. Also one study was in Fox news so that makes the rest bullshit? If you want you can look up Google scholar and see this is not a fear mongering. There are pros and cons to each and I am providing the cons for circumcision and there they are.

So just to say one more time I am not saying these things are impossible just that they require extra effort without foreskin which they do. For penetration the foreskin slides back during penetration allowing it to be easier not having it you will still be able to do it you just need a small bit more effort, masturbation the natural lubrication does provide aid here.

So I don't see how it is just finding a load of crap just because it agrees with me. Circumcision can possibly help alleviate some urinary tract problems in men but if you honestly thing all I've provided is bullshit and scare mongering I don't suppose you want a link to that.

 

[agentorange98]

If we say no circumcision we're basically saying it's illegal to observe religious tradition and that's a slippery slope, I mean it could easily turn into making it illegal to build mosques or own a bible

If I say my religious belief tells me to kill all infidels, should it be made legal? The slippery slope is in the opposite direction: allowing evil under the guise of freedom of belief.

I think that it's a slope both ways, sort of a triangle and legislation dances on the tip. Like believing in creationism, yeah you can believe it and more power to you but it shouldn't be taught in schools as truth. Just like yeah killing infidels should be illegal but that's not what this kind of thing is.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Long story short... I can jerk off just fine without my foreskin.
I have absolutely ZERO problems getting a boner, penetrating a woman isn't hard either (unless she is super tight... but that's an entirely different issue), as for 'reducing female orgasms'... MOST women don't orgasm from penetration anyway... but when I have gotten the ones that do, well... there's no issue there either.
So, your argument sucks. lol
It is not an argument it is a scientifically tested and if you bothered to go back to page 3 you would have seen all the links.

I said it decrease erectile dysfunction rates so unless you are in your 60s that doesn't apply, "normal" penetration with a circumcised penis is harder as the foreskin folding back does aid in penetration I never said it was difficult or impossible, that is relative to the woman but once again it was shown that it was tested and they came to a conclusion that this was the problem.

So it is not an argument it is stuff that I have provided citations for if you want to go back a couple of pages and it would be nice if you actually had numbers to back up most women don't orgasm from sex. That can just be the person or bad performance or both.

It's not just the dudes business if he holds on to his foreskin or not. Penetration without foreskin tends to be more painful for both, and as long as not both sweethearts get a kick out of pain, it sucks. Plus, circumcised dicks are more tolerable with some lube, but most wielders of foreskin-less trousersnakes can't maintain firm manliness when confronted with things that make sense but aren't marked as proper in their holy books. If the old in-and-out is mostly painful and a single session will prevent you from enjoying sitting down for at least a week, it's very obviously just a stupid idea. I'd love to claim Stalin, Hitler or Satan came up with it, but, alas, unfortunately it's a silly idea that's older than any of them.

 

[n00beffect]

Well, speaking as a person who's had circumcision (circumcision-ee?), I can say that indeed, it is better in terms of hygine (and only that, really). How do I know? Well, I had mine when I was about second grade, and thank fuck I didn't get it because of simplicistic religious reasons. I had a... Well, let's call it a skin condition, I won't get into it, but circumcision was my only way out of it. Yeah, it was painful as hell, and I still remember it, for all the suffering it brought me, and continued to bring me until my wound healed-up. But, in the end, was it worth it? Considering that there are less virtues to it, then vices, I'd say no. Yes, it's more hygenic, but on the other hand it's a pretty fucked-up expirience, and it really brands you for life. And from what I've heard, people with circumcision tend to feel less pleasure from sex, due to having the upper skin of their penis removed, and that's where most of the receptors are - so, to hell with that! Plus, people who do it for a religious reason, are idiotic mongrols in my opinion, because submiting your child to the horror, especially if he's old enough to remember it, is on the same level as actually scarring him for life, and I don't believe in that whole 'whatever doesn't kill you blah blah' bullshit - it's true, but whatever doesn't kill you, has gotten pretty close to that, and that's never good! And even if it isn't self-aware enough to know why his pee-pee is missing a topl layer, it's still pretty emberassing, and once they find out... Let's just say it'll closely resemble the feeling of finding out that you're adopted (not that I know what that feeling is, but shut-up, made my point).

Well, I think the message you put out was the fact that you were two, and cognative when you underwent this, that alone could have skewed your vision of a circumcision just a bit, simply because you actually remember having your foreskin removed. I am circumcised, and quite frankly, I don't care, because my foreskin wasn't around long enough for me to really give a crap about it. That might have changed if I had a foreskin, or if I had it, then it was removed when I was little, but most people don't miss what they never had time to even know about. Just an opinion though, and I am sorry you had to go through so much pain when you were young.

Ah, no probs, thanks for the sympathy, and your opinion is totally valid. 'Ignorance is bliss', they say, even though I am not always in agreeance with that phrase. But, still, you've got a point. I guess I am just saying that if parents are gonna do it anyway, then they might as well do it while their kid is still oblivious. Although, I could think of several issues with this notion, like the fact that the child doesn't have a saying in the matter, and, as I said, is stuck with it for life, still I am willing to accept it, to a degree. Oh, and to any males out there, who are old enough to take that decision, and are actually consideringit, just a few words of 'advice': Be prepared for the worst.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Do a quick google search and general consensus is only 25-30pct of women can orgasm during intercourse... foreskin or not.

That still isn't addressing what I have said. You seem to be under the impression that I think having a foreskin is like a vibrator set to high and left on forever. It is not. It does reduce the frequency of female orgasms if you bothered to read any of the links I posted on page 3. All you have done is just stated a fact that is related to one point and ignored everything else.

If you are going to make an argument you could provide the links I shouldn't have to find stuff to back up your argument. At least I told you where all my info was you just have to click 3 first post on the page and scroll down to the relevant link. Sure not all the sources are top notch but they are there.

 

[Snotnarok]

I really don't care that I was, religious beliefs or not it's not effected my life in any way shape or form. Should they be able to decide? ....hell if I know.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Long story short... I can jerk off just fine without my foreskin.
I have absolutely ZERO problems getting a boner, penetrating a woman isn't hard either (unless she is super tight... but that's an entirely different issue), as for 'reducing female orgasms'... MOST women don't orgasm from penetration anyway... but when I have gotten the ones that do, well... there's no issue there either.
So, your argument sucks. lol
It is not an argument it is a scientifically tested and if you bothered to go back to page 3 you would have seen all the links.

I said it decrease erectile dysfunction rates so unless you are in your 60s that doesn't apply, "normal" penetration with a circumcised penis is harder as the foreskin folding back does aid in penetration I never said it was difficult or impossible, that is relative to the woman but once again it was shown that it was tested and they came to a conclusion that this was the problem.

So it is not an argument it is stuff that I have provided citations for if you want to go back a couple of pages and it would be nice if you actually had numbers to back up most women don't orgasm from sex. That can just be the person or bad performance or both.

It's not just the dudes business if he holds on to his foreskin or not. Penetration without foreskin tends to be more painful for both, and as long as not both sweethearts get a kick out of pain, it sucks. Plus, circumcised dicks are more tolerable with some lube, but most wielders of foreskin-less trousersnakes can't maintain firm manliness when confronted with things that make sense but aren't marked as proper in their holy books. If the old in-and-out is mostly painful and a single session will prevent you from enjoying sitting down for at least a week, it's very obviously just a stupid idea. I'd love to claim Stalin, Hitler or Satan came up with it, but, alas, unfortunately it's a silly idea that's older than any of them.

I think you might have quoted the wrong person.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

Well, last time I got into a debate in this thread, I nearly ruined my perfect health meter because of all the people trying to say I was stupid for having my opinion. So, I'm just going to say that I am pro-circumcision due to personal reasons, and if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised. Its an issue I will not budge on.

Now good day!

 

[Tselis]

i was on another thread and a user posted a very negative comment about circumcision. I'm not gonna link to it, but he said parents shouldn't be allowed to circumcise their children and ones who do should be punished.

i'm circumcised and i can't imagine being uncircumcised, so i don't think it should be illegal. but what do you think?


(10 points says poll gets eaten)

Most of the nerves in a man's penis, that allow for feeling, are in the skin at the tip. The original reason for circumcision was to 'take away' pleasure from the act of sex, as a sign of faith, a covenant with God. Men can still orgasm, however there is less sensitivity in the penis after circumcision. I personally view it as a mutilation which shouldn't be available unless medically necessary. It should be an elective surgery performed on baby boys who have no say in the matter. They should be educated on both sides of the issue and then left to choose for themselves when they come of age. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[Slayer_2]

I think it's stupid, but people should be allowed to do it after they're 18, for the same reason they can get a piercing put through their penis. Honestly, circumcision is just cruelty to the baby, it serves no real purpose. If parents were to try and get circumcision of any kind performed on a female baby, they'd be locked up.

 

[drisky]

1) Male circumcision is not as big of a deal as people make it out be.
2) People don't like being repeatedly told they are a mutilated freak. So stop using it as an argument, it doesn't help you.
3) If you compare it to female circumcision, which people often do, you should be punched in the face.

Thus I come to the conclusion that I don't care/don't want to talk about it.

 

[Pipotchi]

Well, last time I got into a debate in this thread, I nearly ruined my perfect health meter because of all the people trying to say I was stupid for having my opinion. So, I'm just going to say that I am pro-circumcision due to personal reasons, and if I ever have a son, he will be circumcised. Its an issue I will not budge on.

Now good day!

Thats your opinion and your choice and you're perfectly entitled to both. Out of Interest what would you say if your son later grew up and regreted your decision to have him circumscised?

What about if he later decided he didnt want to have his own son circumscised? Would that matter?

 

[CATS FTW]

what exactly are the medical reasons for cutting the skin?

I cant really argue against religious people because theyed chop their own head off in they knew jesus would give them a medal afterwards.

I heard most medical/hygenic reasons were bollocks and just made up so people would do it more, and only a few certain people had good medical reason to be circumised because of something or other.

But I havent bothered to look into this.

Im uncircumsised havent really found it much of a problem. it terms of hygene, I do wash my penis, and even if I didnt wash it that much I dont go sticking it in a trashcan or rotting animal carcass.

The medical reason for circumcision is supposedly for hygiene benefits, this was true a very long time ago because the process was invented by middle easter nomads who didn't usually have access to fresh water to wash themselves with leading to infection and bacteria. However nowadays, with the advent of plumbing, or in america where rivers are plentiful the proccess doesn't serve any actual purpose unless you're a free thinking adult and you think it will make jeebus love you more then it's fine, to force anything physical on a baby for no other reason than aesthetics is a brreach of human rights.

 

[Vykrel]

i know its a touchy subject, but personally, im glad im circumcised. dont ask me to explain myself. the last time i said this in a discussion similar to this one, anti-circumcision folks treated me like i was hitler.