Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[thenumberthirteen]

I think that it should be up to the individual when they're old enough to choose (say 16 or 18). I remember watching a clip of a debate online where one of the supporters of circumcision, when asked about the idea of leaving it up to the person at age 18, said "That's silly how many 18 year olds are going to volunteer to have their foreskin removed?" Which I found hilarious because that's exactly the point.

I'm uncircumcised and don't wish to be so. There are no real benefits to do so; just risks.

There is a proven sensory benefit, the foreskin has a lot of nerves that I wish I had. The risks involved with being uncircumcised are actually quite low. Infectious diseases can be eliminated with, and this is a bit shocking, soap! I think people who use this argument don't realize that the only thing necessary to prevent germs is proper hygiene. If your worried about uncleanliness, just remember when your showering to fold the skin back like your using fisstech and do a little scrubbing.

Mt statement was, in retrospect, ambiguous. I don't wish to be circumcised. There is no benefit to being so besides cosmetic preference. That is, as far as I can see, the only argument you can reliably make. That, however, is a personal preference, and so it shouldn't be forced on the young.

Like you said hygiene plays a very small role, and as long as you clean yourself you'll be fine. There is also an argument I hear that it reduces the risk of AIDS, and it's recommended by the World Health Organisation so maybe there's something to that. On the other hand I know the AIDS rate in the USA is quite a bit higher than in Europe where circumcised males make up a tiny minority of the population instead of close to the majority. So... maybe that's BS.

Would I get circumcised if the love of my life couldn't stand to look at my Chap? Maybe, but she'd have to get a Boob Job or something too. A MASSIVE one.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Circumcision? Well, let me give you a little tip...

 

[scw55]

Circumcision though 'reduces the chance of infection in that area', reduces the sensitivity of the tip. Thus sexual intercourse is less stimulating for the male. Without the foreskin the end some-what toughens up because it's not protected. Like how if you walk around with no shoes your soles toughen up.

A lot of strange religious guidelines somehow are grounded in logic (don't eat pork because pigs used to eat shit and thus the meat was made from shit). But sadly as science and understanding improves around the world of health and hygiene some of these guidelines are unneeded because people can remedy health risk.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I voted the parent's choice, but what I really mean, is religious reasons. I really think you shouldn't circumcise, barring medical reasons, unless it's a religious reason. I just don't see a point to cutting off part of the dick for any non-religious reasons. Seems kinda weird.

"(10 points says poll gets eaten)" You, my friend, are out 10 points. I think I will use the points to buy a vineyard, out in the countryside.

What if the religion says you have to cut off the ears, would you be alright with that too?
What about the nostrils?
Or how about simple ritual scarring?

Keep knives away from infants if there's no medical reason to cut them.

Ears≠pointless piece of skin on your penis. Just saying.

The penis contains 24,000 nerve endings uncircumcised. The procedure takes away 20,000 nerve endings alone. The female clitoris has 8,000. Medical fact.

Where exactly is it "useless?" because you can live without it? That makes most of your body useless flesh.

How does that make most of your body useless? Your hair, that would be useless (as far as I can tell), but even eyebrows serve a purpose for your body. They keep seat out of your eyes. To me, the foreskin is like an appendix, I have both but do they serve a purpose I can see right now? No. If I had to live life without a foreskin, I would see a difference. But the fact that you can get along just as fine with/without a foreskin, pretty much makes it useless.

Forgot to include this in my post up there so, the nerve thing? It does suck that you would get less pleasure, however you'd be trading pleasure to last longer (basically) sooooo no bad

If you want to go back to page 3 first post I put a lot of links to stuff refuting basically all of the benefits of circumcision. You last the same either way circumcised people do last longer in sex just because you feel less stimulation does not mean you aren't being actually being stimulated as much. Well that's basically how they say as long as that isn't the broken or crap link.

Actually yes foreskin does provide a purpose as it naturally lubricates the head of the penis which stops some of the sensitivity damage and allows the foreskin to slide back easier. The foreskin sliding back even aids in penetration in sex. I think the only link that is broken is the American cancer society one but there is one for for cancer rates which shows that penile cancer is just as common in US as other developed countries. So if did have an affect which it should according to some studies the already low penile cancer rate would or should be lower in America. I understand that isn't the best logic but I can't find that study again.

 

[elcamino41383]

Eh, to be honest if you never had a foreskin then you never really care that you never had it. I mean, I don't really see the point except for medical or religious reasons, but it's not really the end of the world.

Meh. I'm circumcised, and I don't really care. "BUT YOU HAVE BETTER SEX IF YOU'RE UNCUT!" So? I can't miss what I never had. "BUT IT'S ABUSIVE AND SCARRING!" Please. I remember getting my dessert taken away with more fury and trauma than my circumcision.

Also, it's pretty easy to spot who's circumcised and who's not in this thread.

These sum up my feelings exactly. There is also the fact that, since circumcised is what I'm used to seeing, I personally feel that an circumcised penis looks a little odd. Not that a penis doesn't look odd anyway.

 

[ChaoticKraus]

Living in europe i'm still confused as to why you would want to do it. It just sounds retarded to hurt a baby because of traditional/religious reasons.

 

[Sun Flash]

As a woman, I don't have much perspective on this. What I will say is that if I ever have a son, I'll leave it up to him to do whatever he wants with his dong. There's no overwhelming positive or negative arguments for either side (barring immediate medical problems of course), and the hygiene point is moot, it's not that difficult to give it a quick clean in the shower.

TL;DR If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[BleedingPride]

doesnt really affect sexual performance but if the want to then they can

 

[Neil Sharpson]

I actually had to be circumcised at the age of 27 for a medical condition. Sometimes it's neccesarry.

 

[The Dutchess]

Being circumsized or uncircumsized - either way shouldn't matter.
What should matter is that it's the choice of the individual whether for religious or non-religious reasons. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Sewora]

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but the foreskin is by far one of the most erogenous zones on the male body. Alot of uncircumsized men can orgasm simply from stimulating the foreskin alone.

That being said, circumcision is wrong due to many worldly and regional reasons.

It's technically mutilation, a modern society would never let a parent decide to cut off certain other body parts on an infants body simply because they felt like it.

Very few doctors actually do it these days, and most recommend you not to have it done on your child since it has no medical benefits. It's actually quite the opposite. The foreskin maintains, lubricates, protects the gland from infections, keeps it clean, fresh and healthy.

The foreskin serves the purpose of lubricating the penis during intercourse or masturbation aswell.

By US standards it's unconstitutional. From my research I've come to realize that the US constitution says that you are free to choose your own religion, which becomes an impossibility if you are circumsized. You are not allowed to be Hindu if you are circumsized.


There's a thousand different other reasons why it should not be allowed.
And I'm perfectly aware that circumsized men will argue that it's alright and causes no harm. But *some* Islamic women would argue that having the right to dress as you want, be who you want, be with whomever you want or eat and drink what you want is wrong aswell.
It's all about how you've been raised and lived your life. No one is going to tell you that you're a bad person for being circumsized, but you might get a few comments if you have it done to a defenseless child that doesn't have the power to say no.


Yes.. The word "no", and the power therein. The lack of ability to say no does not justify anything you do to a person who can't say no. That's like gagging someone, cutting off parts of their body and claim it's fine because they never said no.


And I've heard the stupidest reasons as to why it's good. With the fact that it has no medical value proven, people have turned to other reasons to justify circumsizion. Such as; "It looks better", or "It's easier to clean", or the dumbest excuse I've ever heard; "It looks normal if it's circumsized."


And to conclude, there's nothing wrong with circumsizion if you decide have it done to yourself.
Just be aware that circumsizion is an archaic tradition that is dying out in the modern world. Only a few third world countries and USA still maintains a high rate of circumsizion performed on infants.
If we should allow circumsizion, it should be fine to have sex with children for religious reasons, or sacrifice animals, break childrens spines, force men and women into sex, all in the name of religion. Is that really the kinda world we want to live in? Not I, and I'm happy I live in good old Sweden, where we got rid of such barbaric rituals a long time ago.

 

[Batou667]

It's genital mutilation. Fairly harmless mutilation, but mutilation nonetheless. I'm baffled as to why people would do it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

 

[Thanato5]

one word. barbaric.

 

[Sewora]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm a bit torn here. I'm uncircumcised (dad wouldn't go for the alternative) and I'm both comfortable with the current situation, but somewhat curious how it'd be were I in the other...state.

This is a bit awkward to phrase.

Honestly, I'd be a bit interested to see the performance differences, since that's all that actually matters to me in the sex act, so...yeah!

Not a fan of the mutilation aspect.

Make no mistake, it IS mutilation of a child's genitals. If you're taking a knife and metal clamps to it, you're not exactly fostering a natural environment for that individual child's package. Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly painful for the infant.

Have you seen those things being done? Or seen the tools used to do it? Like something out of a Middle Ages torture brochure.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment. I have never been unsatisfied with sex or masturbation (well, I have on occasion, but obviously there are other factors too).

 

[Sewora]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment. I have never been unsatisfied with sex or masturbation (well, I have on occasion, but obviously there are other factors too).

Not very effective at all. People always find a way. You can cut off the hands on a person, and that person will still find a way to masturbate.
But what we know of people's ingenuity today, they weren't factoring in back when it was more commonplace to circumsize.

 

[OriginalLadders]

Except for cases of severe phimosis (which can only really become a problem during puberty) circumcision is entirely unnecessary.

I think it is utterly disgusting when the first thing that pops into a new parent's head is "Aww... let's cut a bit of him off."

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Not very effective at all. People always find a way. You can cut off the hands on a person, and that person will still find a way to masturbate.
But what we know of people's ingenuity today, they weren't factoring in back when it was more commonplace to circumsize.

Err... You're not suggesting I'm using slices of ham or something?