OK... I registered just to take part in this poll and state my opinion about that; how crazy is that?!
First, let me tell you something about myself:
I am 24 (soon 25) years old, roman catholic (even though I don't give a damn), German and circumcised since I've been 2, 3, 4(?) years old? I seriously can't put my finger on it.
My penis - here we go ^^ - is of regular size (13-15cm, varies) and belongs to the "blood penis" sub-type or whatever you might call it. I have no problems whatsoever that are or could in any way be related to the circumcision and everything functions properly.
The surgery was performed due to medical reasons and in a regular hospital under anesthesia.
Am I pro or contra this procedure?
PRO!
Why? It's convenient... humans do not need this part of their body anymore. Hair, the appendix, wisdom tooths AND the foreskin are nothing but remnants of long gone ages. Washing is easy and quick, peeing is easy, quick and clean, sex is easy and clean - although sometimes quick *wink*
Do I think it looks better/worse than an uncircumcised penis?
Yes and no... both kinds can be ugly looking, but a wrinkled skin over your penis? No, thank you!
Should it be performed out of religious reasons?
HELL NO! F*CK RELIGIONS!
Medical reasons?
YES!
Who should get to decide?
I DON'T CARE! Complaining about this in my opinion is bat shit crazy - it must be an American or maybe Christian thing. No one robbed you of anything, no part of your life is reduced in quality because of this - it even is improved in some ways.
But as I also want children to be not allowed to practice any religion until the age of 18/21 and THEN choosing what and if they want to believe I have to go with: Let the child decide! Except for medical reasons, then it's necessary.
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.
As compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with their orgasms. (p < .05) and a wide range of negative emotions associated with being circumcised (p < .05). Previous research indicates women enjoy intercourse better with genitally intact men (9, O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001, see above). In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
We postulate that the `ridged band' with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the `smooth' mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the `ridged band' to move from a forward to a `deployed' position on the shaft of the penis. In short, the prepuce should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more and less specialized parts.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. Possibly, the `ridged band' helps mediate the afferent limb of the ejaculatory reflex. Another use has to be found for the infantile prepuce, which contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion; its internal organization is poorly understood but a case can be made for sensory tissue with the rigidity and form associated with specific function.
Go nuts. You'll also notice how in the case of the Sorells study(if you check the wiki, that is) that Morris and Waskett pulled general pedantry in order to undermine the study while providing no conclusive proof of their own. They also argued that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only type of sensitivity, but by arguing that, you're accepting that it(fine-touch sensitivity) is lost with the foreskin, and if fine-touch sensitivity triggers don't exist, you'd have to resort to (possibly)more aggressive forms of stimulation, since only pressure, pain, vibration and temperature(The glans doesn't even temperature sensitivity) sensitivity triggers remain. This ties in with the study I'm going to quote below
The O'Hara and O'Hara study in the UK was a self-selected, voluntary survey. Some of its subjects were recruited from anti-circumcision sources, tending to bias results away from circumcision, but it had two strikes in its favour.
All the women who took part had experienced sex with both intact and circumcised men.
They described in detail what they experienced, and sometimes found favourable attributes in spite of their preferences
"[The] women [who] preferred circumcised partners ... still found unaltered partners to evoke more vaginal fluid production, a lower vaginal discomfort rating and fewer complaints ... during intercourse than their circumcised partners."
"Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus was different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents."
gummibear76 said:
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.
More misinformation. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and will sometimes not separate(naturally, of course) till late puberty. Even so, it isn't like you need to be scrubbing it down aggressively with soap. A light rub(which is how masturbation starts and why circumcision was introduced in the first place) under running water is more than enough unless the child has an open wound down there.
gummibear76 said:
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.
Looking at it this way, maybe parents want to circumcise so they can be even more damn lazy and incompetent than they already are, all under the guise of being concerned for the welfare of their son.
ravensheart18 said:
Only in your opinion. Culture and tradition itself has value to any people.
Only in your opinion. Culture and tradition itself has value to any people.
In my opinion there has to be a reason NOT to do it to change cultural traditions. I don't have to justify why I wear a hat to anyone, its just our tradition. That tradition has value to us as a people.
Your parents didn't physically nail a hat to your head as an infant so that removing your hat would require major surgery.
Generally speaking, we live in countries where people aren't expected to interpret their culture the same way or to see it as valuable simply because "everyone else" does. You've misinterpreted my point to be that simply being wanted by people isn't good enough to make a tradition worth keeping up. Of course it is. The point is that in a multicultural secular society each generation and each individual has to judge the value or relevance of a tradition to itself, you cannot simply assume that your child will grow up to believe as you do.
Fundamentally, it comes down to this. You don't own your children's bodies, you look after them until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves and during that time the choices you make for them are your responsibility. Do you really consider cosmetic surgery, however simple, a valuable exercise of that responsibility? Because in the absence of any real benefit, circumcision is a cosmetic procedure for the vast majority of people who get it.
In most cases, whatever you teach or do to your children is reversible if it turns out they wish it to be. Circumcision is not one of those things. With modern medical technology it's not very difficult to get it done as an adult if you want it, it is however impossible to perfectly reconstruct a foreskin once it's been removed.
As I said earlier, this practice (outside of Judaism and Islam, for whom I can understand the cultural argument but still question whether it needs to be done in infancy any more) is a 150 year old "cure" for masturbation. It's hardly written in the constitution.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
I'm not the best example of a stereotypical Christian, but I've run into that verse before, and it always amuses me at how often die-hard fanatic Christians know little to nothing about the Bible.
Right. I referenced the most comprehensive study involving foreskin sensitivity in my initial response, and the researchers didn't assert a loss of sexual sensation or pleasure due to the missing receptors because of their testing methods and the distinct disadvantages to the ways other studies performed their surveys.
Yes, this study right here, actually. Don't just read the parts the biased website want you to read. Look at their discussion:
Despite the controversy over the long-term impact of male circumcision, no thorough, objective, quantitative studies measuring the long-term sensory consequences of infant circumcision have hitherto been reported.
Again, that study doesn't say what you think it does. The entire purpose of the research was to figure out a way to measure sensitivity loss for other studies to take advantage of, NOT make conclusions about circumcisions and sexual gratification.
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle5/
As compared with genitally intact men, circumcised men reported significantly greater dissatisfaction with their orgasms. (p < .05) and a wide range of negative emotions associated with being circumcised (p < .05). Previous research indicates women enjoy intercourse better with genitally intact men (9, O'Hara & O'Hara, 2001, see above). In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.
-Their reference that women enjoy uncut men more is a link to a website trying to sell you a book, which is shoddy even if it was written by an M.D. I can't take that portion seriously.
-The experiment wasn't well performed. They don't make any mentions of controls or accounting for other variables, and half of their study relies on the partners of the participants accurately reporting in lieu of the men.
-The researchers did not perform any physical or psychological side effects to determine whether the men involved were otherwise fit and healthy. This is probably my biggest hang-up because they're relying on subjective interpretations and personal experiences to dictate their data - which can be notoriously inaccurate.
They also don't make any efforts to interview men who chose to get a circumcision later in life, which you think would be the very first thing to do if you want to prove the adverse psychological affects of circumcision since you can clearly correlate data before and after.
At least their sample size was decent, even if their lack of control for variables was horrendous.
Take this one with a huge grain of salt if you want to believe it, but I'm not buying it.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
We postulate that the `ridged band' with its unique structure, tactile corpuscles and other nerves, is primarily sensory tissue and that it cooperates with other components of the prepuce. In this model, the `smooth' mucosa and true skin of the adult prepuce act together to allow the `ridged band' to move from a forward to a `deployed' position on the shaft of the penis. In short, the prepuce should be considered a structural and functional unit made up of more and less specialized parts.
It is generally thought that the prepuce protects the glans. However, it is equally likely that the glans shapes and protects the prepuce. In return, the glans and penile shaft gain excellent if surrogate sensitivity from the prepuce. Possibly, the `ridged band' helps mediate the afferent limb of the ejaculatory reflex. Another use has to be found for the infantile prepuce, which contains muscle bundles, blood vessels and nerves in profusion; its internal organization is poorly understood but a case can be made for sensory tissue with the rigidity and form associated with specific function.
The only half-decent study provided... but again, this only proves there's some sort of sensation lost: Not that the lost sensation results in less gratification or that it isn't compensated for by nearby tissue.
It doesn't prove sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision.
Go nuts. You'll also notice how in the case of the Sorells study(if you check the wiki, that is) that Morris and Waskett pulled general pedantry in order to undermine the study while providing no conclusive proof of their own. They also argued that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only type of sensitivity, but by arguing that, you're accepting that it(fine-touch sensitivity) is lost with the foreskin, and if fine-touch sensitivity triggers don't exist, you'd have to resort to (possibly)more aggressive forms of stimulation, which ties in with the study I'm going to quote below...
Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.
I've been saying that the argument for clear causation of circumcision to sexual dysfunction is bunk. Yes, the part of the skin that's cut off had nerve endings. Does it appear to interfere with any measure of sexual gratification? No.
Look at the dozens of studies performed. The majority didn't find any statistically significant differences between cut/uncut penises, and for every study that supports a negative association with Circumcision there's another that counters it.
The trend that I personally spotted was:
For the better-designed, better-controlled studies with a widely representative subject pool, there isn't any significant difference in function or sexual gratification between men who were circumcised shortly after birth and those who weren't.
For those men who chose to get circumcised later in life for medical or personal reasons, the majority didn't report any significant improvement or degradation of sexual gratification or sensation.
If there's any bias in the dozens of studies which have been peer-reviewed, it's that getting circumcised later in life carries a slightly higher probability of having any reaction at all (negative or positive) because most men do so for vanity or medical issues resulting in less than expected improvement or significantly more improvement than expected relative to their physiological and psychological state prior to the surgery.
The O'Hara and O'Hara study in the UK was a self-selected, voluntary survey. Some of its subjects were recruited from anti-circumcision sources, tending to bias results away from circumcision...
This study stops here, because after that sentence, the study is the opposite of science. It willingly introduces bias that skews its results in favor of the researchers' bias.
Garbage when I saw it the first time above, and it's even more garbage now.
Also, as a personal request, please don't cite obviously biased organizations. The actual studies are easily accessible in the references section of Wikipedia, there's PubMed, hundreds of searchable Scientific Journals, and most colleges publish staff research submitted to journals.
There's absolutely no reason you should be getting info from anywhere else other than peer-reviewed sources.
gummibear76 said:
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.
More misinformation. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and will sometimes not separate(naturally, of course) till late puberty. Even so, it isn't like you need to be scrubbing it down aggressively with soap. A light rub(which is how masturbation starts and why circumcision was introduced in the first place) under running water is more than enough unless the child has an open wound down there.
Agreed. The hygiene issue of the foreskin isn't really an issue. All you do is teach the kid to pull it back and clean it out. It only becomes meaningful if the person doesn't bathe for very, very long stretches of time or gets an infection which remains untreated.
I'm pro amputating womens breasts. They are largely unecessary and causes backpain, can become cancerous and serves no real purpose with the invention of formula.
So.. Where is the flaw in that kind of thinking? Well, there's many factors to take into consideration. First off, it'd be inhumane to do that to anyone, assuming they don't want certain bodyparts.
Second, it'd be ridiculous to implement costly procedures simply because we feel the bodyparts no longer serve their original purpose when they still serve a purpose.
Thirdly, if there is a single reason as to why a certain bodypart should not be permanently removed, then it should not. That is the basis as to why we shouldn't rape women and children, strike children or treat others poorly.
Why? Well.. There's upsides to rape and molestation of children. A child that is physically capable of carrying a child should have sex and make babies, right? No.. Of course not, that'd be insane.
Should be strike disobedient children? They'll behave and respect you out of fear which is great, right? No, again it's wrong.
Simply because you can point of benefits of a crude act doesn't justify the act, it's just a ridiculous attempt at covering up what you're really doing.
Why is it still legal in the modern world when every other similar procedure has been outlawed, such as lobotomy and circumcision of females?
Well, it's because the majority of the US public are in fact circumsized and too scared or stubborn to even touch the subject.
Women in the US are rapidly becomming more and more aware of the benefits of uncircumsized men and asking why it's even done.
Men on the other hand doesn't want to face the fact that what's been done to them is wrong and that they will never in their life experience the joy of not being mutilated. So they tell themselves it's fine, that they don't miss it or desperately trying to point out benefits with it.
Benefits that has no value in comparison to the downsides.
So what can we do? There's little that can be done. These people are too adamant about their opinions. If you've never had candy in your whole life, you're not going to crave it. So why would they even wanna question their situation when they know of nothing else?
Luckily for the men on this planet, circumsizion is a dying ritual. In four hundred years I'd be surprised if there's a single person still circumsized in the modern world.
But what can we do? How about those few per cent of men who are damaged by circumcision and can never have their body restored to it's proper state again? Nothing, unfortunately. They are being damaged beyond repair by a malevolent public who refuses to face facts.
Simply put, a rapist doesn't actually believe what he's doing is wrong. For him, it's reality. You can try to talk sense into him, but he won't stop being a rapist because to him, he's right.
Luckily for us though, there's no scientists even remotely interested in trying to justify rape.
I guess that's because rapist scientists are few and far inbetween... Circumsized scientists however, are probably pretty damned common, and I doubt they'd be interested in trying to prove their bodies are damaged beyond repair.
I'm pro amputating womens breasts. They are largely unecessary and causes backpain, can become cancerous and serves no real purpose with the invention of formula.
Actually the biggest flaw is you don't understand women's breasts.
Let's start with formula and breast feeding. Formula does not replace breast feeding, not even close. It is a replacement when you have no other choice. The nutriant list and benefits to both mother and baby are overwhelming with breast feeding.
As for the back pain, that is a real issue, but only for those with large breast. In that case many people have breast reductions that solve the problem, but moving from that to amputation is unnecessary to solve the back pain.
Breasts also serve as a method of courting. This is biologically programmed into us. The primary reasons seem to be human's absense of "heat related" signs and the fact that walking upright has removed the natural "bottom" that most primates use for attraction. The breasts look surprisingly like nice plump bums.
Amputation can also cause hormone problems for the woman.
On balance, you have demonstrated glands that if removed would create demonstratable harm.
Great, you understand how we feel then. And that's pretty much what we're all saying about the foreskin. Regardless of what you claim, it does serve a purpose. And the benefits of having it outweights the benefits of not having it.
Just so you know, I'm in perfect agreement with you about the breasts. But if a country had a history of amputating breasts, people would defend that as fiercly.
No idea. I guess there's the chance it could develop an infection or something. I'm not saying everyone should have it, but it's hardly a big deal. It's not like it's impaired me from doing anything that I would have done if I hadn't been circumcised.
Actually, circumcising your penis makes it more numb to sensations. And it is possible to grow it back. (check out Penn and Teller: Bullshit, their episode on circumcision)
No idea. I guess there's the chance it could develop an infection or something. I'm not saying everyone should have it, but it's hardly a big deal. It's not like it's impaired me from doing anything that I would have done if I hadn't been circumcised.
Actually, circumcising your penis makes it more numb to sensations. And it is possible to grow it back. (check out Penn and Teller: Bullshit, their episode on circumcision)
It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.
I think its wrong to chop bits off people unnecesssarily. Failing that, how come male circumcision is ok but female circumcision is 'genital mutilation'
Female circumcision is done with the express purpose of removing any possible pleasure from sex. Ever. It also tends to cause horrific tearing during pregnancy.
It tends to be done by men to women, as well, as opposed to as a joint decision in the household. Female circumsion is a symbol of the woman's servile role in the societies where it is practiced, whereas male circumcision has no such stigma.
This is comparing trimming a fingernail and removing the finger, it really is. A circumsized male is fully functional sexually, while a circumcized female has lost the capacity to have an orgasm and has some added, pretty major, health risks.
It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.
That's a very informative site. That's exactly what every parent is taught when having a child, girl or boy. There's necessary information for both.
But that site raises a question. If the foreskin is attached to the glans, how exactly is a circumcision performed? Wouldn't it damage the penis and cause extreme pain to the infant?
To me, these are normal facts, I'm perfectly aware of how it works, and so does all children here too. These facts are as standard as knowing you have genitals. But not necessarily all the exact details though.
But to someone who's unaware of how uncircumsized penises works this is brilliant information that tells you that it's not bad, it's not unhealthy or unhygenic but perfectly normal, in a non-hostile and very informative way.
This kind of information should be more widespread in the US I believe.
Circumcision is not even performed properly these days. At least the people who first did it were intelligent enough to understand that it did in fact serve a purpose, so they left enough foreskin to allow for the glans and sexual intercourse to remain largely unchanged.
Waitwaitwait.... I've been reading this forum (on page 3 now), and cirumcised guys NEED lube to masturbate? How the hell can you say that "its fine, nothing really changes" if you HAVE to have lube to masturbate? I never really understood in before some guys would have lube, or why it was always used in reference to masturbation.
This is high mutilation i tell you.....
There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.
True, you'll never get back the messeiner's corpuscles or the sensory experiences associated with them.
SciMal said:
Right. I referenced the most comprehensive study involving foreskin sensitivity in my initial response, and the researchers didn't assert a loss of sexual sensation or pleasure due to the missing receptors because of their testing methods and the distinct disadvantages to the ways other studies performed their surveys.
Maybe not, but would it be inaccurate or misleading to say that a burn victim does not have the same sensory experiences(with regard to the burned skin) that a person with healthy, unburned skin has?
In addition, if the only regions left after circumcision are less responsive to stimulation, is it not logical to assume more/varied stimulation would be required?
SciMal said:
Yes, this study right here, actually. Don't just read the parts the biased website want you to read. Look at their discussion:
Did you bother to go all the way down to the conclusions?
"In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."
Although I've covered that in my previous point.
SciMal said:
Again, that study doesn't say what you think it does. The entire purpose of the research was to figure out a way to measure sensitivity loss for other studies to take advantage of, NOT make conclusions about circumcisions and sexual gratification.
Alright, I'll keep that one out of the discussion.
SciMal said:
The only half-decent study provided... but again, this only proves there's some sort of sensation lost: Not that the lost sensation results in less gratification or that it isn't compensated for by nearby tissue.
It doesn't prove sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision.
Again, I've explained this above, and have never said anything regarding sexual dysfunction. Possibly reduced/muted sensory experiences do not equate to lack of sensory experiences/sexual dysfunction.
Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.
SciMal said:
Does it appear to interfere with any measure of sexual gratification? No.
You're being silly here, because sexual gratification is not something you can objectively measure. Like I mentioned, Morris(pro-circumcision bias) and Waskett stated that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only stimulus available or the only stimulus that could produce sexual feedback.
Of course, if you agree that the fine-touch sensory receptors are removed with the foreskin, and the that remaining regions on the circumcised penis(barring the region adjoining the scar) are devoid of fine-touch receptors, you're left with pressure, vibration, pain and temperature receptors.
From there, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you'll have to get your jollies off using pressure, pain, temperature(glans is excluded here) and vibration.
Additionally, taking into account the pseudo-lubricant function the foreskin provides, is it not safe to say that circumcised men are more likely to have more vigorous(possibly painful for the woman) vaginal sex?
SciMal said:
For the better-designed, better-controlled studies with a widely representative subject pool, there isn't any significant difference in function or sexual gratification between men who were circumcised shortly after birth and those who weren't.
Again, like I said, measuring sexual gratification is not feasible as it isn't something objectively quantifiable.
My final stance on circumcision is this: There is a reasonable likelihood of circumcision irreversibly changing sexual experiences(in addition to the risks that accompany it as a surgery), and this is the sole reason it should not be allowed without the consent of the person involved.
SciMal said:
This study stops here, because after that sentence, the study is the opposite of science. It willingly introduces bias that skews its results in favor of the researchers' bias.
Fair enough, but you should realise that you'll have a fair amount of bias in a lot of the studies unless they're based on completely quantifiable properties, strict scientific methods(possibly involving neuro-imaging in the future), and well-varied test pools. For example, studies that involve(even marginally) personal experience and based in the US, will always have respondents favour circumcision, even if it isn't a conscious response.
Lastly, I hate to be the one to bring up something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the foreskin trade for consumer cosmetics is a very real, very lucrative business.
I'd attribute at least some of the pro-circumcision "lobbying" to practitioners and others involved that don't want to give up on their baby-skin goldmine.
The resale value of neonate foreskins is astronomically dizzying in that from one boy?s foreskin can be grown bio-engineered skin in a lab to the size of a football field. That?s 4 acres of new skin or around 200,000 units of manufactured skin, which is enough skin to cover about 250 people and sells at $3,000 a square foot. Considering that there are 1.25 million neonate foreskins circumcised each year in the U.S alone this translates to one of the most lucrative trades, if not THE most lucrative trade in human body parts ever in the history of humanity.
It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.
It doesn't actually say that in the video, the video leaves you with the impression you had.
But; are you going to tell a man, a man that is obviously so troubled by his circumcision that he has gone to extreme levels of time and effort to adapt his penis so he can recreate his foreskin, that it is not actually foreskin?
Actually its true because your cutting of lots of nerves. Say doctors remove nerves in your rm, its going to be less sensitive. You cant measure that, but there is difference becuase the nerves are absent.
Ask any circumcised male that is sexually active if sex is pleasurable to him....he's going to say yes. What exactly is "more pleasurable"? Increased sensitivity would also mean earlier ejaculation, which means sex is quicker. Few men would want this.
What I am trying to get at though is that the only conceivable way to measure a reduction in sensitivity and pleasure is to take an uncircumcised male who is sexually active, then snip his foreskin off and let him have sex. Until that happens, declaring that there is a decrease in pleasure is a fallacy that has never been backed up. I.E. pulled out of people's asses.
celestialum said:
Whining for the sake of being whiney? Seriously? It matters to me because my body was mutilated and I had no say in the matter. It matters to me because one of the most personal parts of my body was irreversibly changed without any concern for my opinion on the matter.
Mutilated? Really? Are you suffering a handicap or are deformed in any way? Is your daily life a wreck and a constant trial? No, I doubt it is. Was it done against your will? yes, but then so was your parent's cutting your hair and clipping your nails and getting your immunized and taking you to the dentist, all of which can cause trauma to young children. You can't miss what you never had, and can never get back. So if all you do is complain and don't/can't do anything about it, then you are whining.
[quote/]Again, yes, it has medical benefits, but those benefits are not unique to circumcision: they can be attained in other manners than genital mutilation. You seem to be coming from the viewpoint of, "Yeah, let's mutilate some babies, give me a reason why not." While I am coming from the viewpoint of, "No, let's not mutilate some babies, give me very convincing reasons as to why it should be done."
Lets see....I do believe that giving someone a additional protection against catching and transmitting diseases is a good reason. Yeah, condoms do the same thing, but you can't wear two condoms, but you can have a hardened penis that works in conjunction with a condom. Then there are the less tangible benefits. For one, IT'S NORMAL. Yeah yeah, you may argue about how it shouldn't be and an uncut penis is more natural, but please try and remember being in the school gym locker room at shower time. Uncut boys were considered weird. Same goes with most American women. I know many women who consider an uncut dick to be odd and would rather not let one in her. Appearance plays a large part, whether you want it to or not.
I have yet to hear any. And you disrespecting and disregarding people who disagree with you does nothing to validate your opinion, or make me respect it.
Again, if all you are is complaining about something you have no control over and aren't doing anything to fix it, you are a whiner. You have control over your own child, but don't you dare stick your nose into other people's business and tell them what to do with their children. That shows far more disrespect than anything I have written.[/quote]
Right. Because stopping a father from belting his son every night is disrespectful. You ARE an american, aren't you?
Parents don't have SHIT property rights over their children. They have a responsibility and arguably a privilege, that can be taken away at a moments notice if they mistreat their children. Children are PEOPLE, and everyone in a country has certain rights that are protected.
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
Circumcision: Enforcing YOUR beliefs on someone else
Owning a Bible: Practicing YOUR beliefs on yourself
Furthermore: If I am a follower of the Norse faith, I should be allowed to offer up a person as a human sacrifice to Odin? Or should I stone my wife who isn't a virgin? Or force my daughter to marry her rapist?
If religious tradition goes against ANY laws or rights it shouldn't be allowed.
Conversely, if it doesn't break any laws then... more power to you. If you want to believe in God, or a force in nature, or whatnot, go ahead. Just don't break our laws, k?
OT: It may not be a big deal. There may or may not be slight medical reasons for it/against it.
Bottom line is: circumcision can kill. If it doesn't matter either way, then why risk it?
Most important question, does it really I mean REALLY matter? If your circumcised at birth your not going to miss the foreskin, it's not life altering. It's pointless ranting and raging, at something most children will not remember.
Now, if the parents forced a kid to do it once they were older, that's different. If your entire argument against is "They don't have a choice" Think about your ENTIRE childhood, how many choices regarding your life did you make at an early age?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
