Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Olivia Faraday]

I'll cry for you the next time I cut myself shaving my entire damn body to conform to weird infantalized standards of beauty.

You don't have to do that if you don't want to.

That frankly sounds lovely, but it's just not an option. A North American woman with hairy armpits is a woman who not only never gets laid, she also gets horrified expressions whenever she raises her arms in public. I get rashes, irritation, and ingrown hairs regularly, but I'm still expected to keep my pits and legs 100% hair free. If that's the way the world works, I'm perfectly fine with saying I prefer dicks that don't look like they're wearing turtlenecks, though I admit -- neither is particularly mind-blowing attractive.

The fact is, people do dangerous, degrading or unpalatable things every damn day to look attractive, and this particular issue isn't anywhere near as big a deal as it's made out to be in that light.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

So you're saying: "I suffer, so I want guys to suffer too."

 

[Titan Buttons]

No harm is done to the child but there is no medical benift from it, so it's all a matter of personal choice of the parents.

Except for the fact that the child loses a very important muceous membrane that has the same sensitivity as the glans, so his sexual sensation is reduced greatly, his ability to lubricate properly is lost, and the reduction of friction due to the piston-effect is lost, effectively making sex less pleasurable for both the male and female.
Not the mention the medical benefits of having your glans protected at young age.

Oh I don't see how it could possibly be considered as harming the child...

You do know all those side effects are minimal to the point that the aren't life effecting and/or not noticable right? I've never heard someone say "Oh I'm not bad at sex I'm just circumcisied"
And I can personaly tell you sex still works fine but your concern is appreciated.

And the medical benefits of having ones glans protected at a young age (though I don't see age changes anything) is irrelevent because we wear clothing.

Neither can I, but some people just blow things out of proportion...

 

[Maze1125]

I'll cry for you the next time I cut myself shaving my entire damn body to conform to weird infantalized standards of beauty.

You don't have to do that if you don't want to.

That frankly sounds lovely, but it's just not an option. A North American woman with hairy armpits is a woman who not only never gets laid, she also gets horrified expressions whenever she raises her arms in public. I get rashes, irritation, and ingrown hairs regularly, but I'm still expected to keep my pits and legs 100% hair free. If that's the way the world works, I'm perfectly fine with saying I prefer dicks that don't look like they're wearing turtlenecks, though I admit -- neither is particularly mind-blowing attractive.

You know, it's quite possible to wear clothing that covers your legs and armpits in public, and there are men who find women with natural body hair to be attractive.

And, regardless, I don't see how your reversible decision to risk cutting yourself as an adult, in any way effects the argument that people shouldn't make irreversible inherently painful choices for an infant, so they can never make the choice for themselves.

And the medical benefits of having ones glans protected at a young age (though I don't see age changes anything) is irrelevent because we wear clothing.

The fact we wear clothes is precisely why protecting the glans is important.
As we wear clothing, that's around 18 years of time in which the penis is rubbing up against fabric for 24 hours a day. That is extremely desensitising, and if the glans is directly exposed to the rubbing, then that is the part of the body that is getting desensitised.

So, this is how it ultimately works out regarding sex and circumcision:

If a man was circumcised at birth, then his penis has years of getting desensitised before he ever has sex, the result is that sex has significantly less feeling than it would have.

If a man chooses to get circumcised as an adult, then he feels more during sex, as the act of the circumcision exposes entirely new nerves that have never been exposed before.
Of course, after that, he'll begin to get desensitised, but that will take years and, more importantly, he'll have the choice of if he wants greater pleasure now, but desensitisation later or to keep the levels consistent. As opposed to the being forced into being desensitised his entire sexual life.

You say:

You do know all those side effects are minimal to the point that the aren't life effecting and/or not noticable right?

But of course it's not noticeable. You've never had anything to compare it to. You can't notice a difference if you've only ever experienced one way. That doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist, or that it isn't significant.

 

[AngloDoom]

I'll cry for you the next time I cut myself shaving my entire damn body to conform to weird infantalized standards of beauty.

You don't have to do that if you don't want to.

That frankly sounds lovely, but it's just not an option. A North American woman with hairy armpits is a woman who not only never gets laid, she also gets horrified expressions whenever she raises her arms in public. I get rashes, irritation, and ingrown hairs regularly, but I'm still expected to keep my pits and legs 100% hair free. If that's the way the world works, I'm perfectly fine with saying I prefer dicks that don't look like they're wearing turtlenecks, though I admit -- neither is particularly mind-blowing attractive.

The fact is, people do dangerous, degrading or unpalatable things every damn day to look attractive, and this particular issue isn't anywhere near as big a deal as it's made out to be in that light.

Yes, yes. We all know how hard it is keeping up with all the latest fashions and trying to aspire to an ideal of beauty. I do totally sympathise with you and feel your pain on that behalf: but what you are saying is totally irrelevant.

You are choosing to do this to yourself - something that is dangerous only as far as a nick or irritated skin. This is surgery - and I obviously don't have to point out that any surgery is a risk - on an infant for (barring religious) totally cosmetic reasons that is forced upon them at birth without consent.

As much as you seem to be against the issue, you are perpetuating it with your attitudes toward it. You're not alone in this, obviously, as we all inflict such expectations on ourselves and others regularly, but you can't complain about an issue while contributing to the causes of it.

I'm thankful that I was born in a region in which circumcision is seen as the less attractive option: if I ever wish to be circumcised then I will. I'd much rather face the pain of surgery than have my right to choose what to do with my own body taken away from me.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

You do know all those side effects are minimal to the point that the aren't life effecting and/or not noticable right? I've never heard someone say "Oh I'm not bad at sex I'm just circumcisied"

Would they admit being bad? But I once read a testimonial by, ahem, 'professionals': they said cut men are usually rougher, thrusting deeper and harder, and causing more attrition and discomfort. Meanwhile, intact men, not being desensitized, can afford shorter, smoother moves that are actually more pleasing to women.

 

[Titan Buttons]

Would they admit being bad? But I once read a testimonial by, ahem, 'professionals': they said cut men are usually rougher, thrusting deeper and harder, and causing more attrition and discomfort. Meanwhile, intact men, not being desensitized, can afford shorter, smoother moves that are actually more pleasing to women.

Well true it's kind of something that just goes unspoken amoung men but if someone is bad they themselves usually know and just don't tell anyone.
That is interesting but I've honestly never heard of such things. And well I don't really believe a doctor would bring up such things when talking to parents of a new born or an adult who is doing it, since the main reason for it is religious based.

 

[Titan Buttons]

And the medical benefits of having ones glans protected at a young age (though I don't see age changes anything) is irrelevent because we wear clothing.

The fact we wear clothes is precisely why protecting the glans is important.
As we wear clothing, that's around 18 years of time in which the penis is rubbing up against fabric for 24 hours a day. That is extremely desensitising, and if the glans is directly exposed to the rubbing, then that is the part of the body that is getting desensitised.

So, this is how it ultimately works out regarding sex and circumcision:

If a man was circumcised at birth, then his penis has years of getting desensitised before he ever has sex, the result is that sex has significantly less feeling than it would have.

If a man chooses to get circumcised as an adult, then he feels more during sex, as the act of the circumcision exposes entirely new nerves that have never been exposed before.
Of course, after that, he'll begin to get desensitised, but that will take years and, more importantly, he'll have the choice of if he wants greater pleasure now, but desensitisation later or to keep the levels consistent. As opposed to the being forced into being desensitised his entire sexual life.

While you are correct the the penis would become desensitised from rubbing against clothing it would not effect the underside of the penis head that the main nerve cluster is located and is where the majority of stimulating is felt during sex, in regaurds to the area that would be desensitised.

Furthermone, does not seem like it is such a serious problem that the act of circumcision needs to be banned. If this conclusion was actually ultering any individuals sex lives to an extent that actually interfered with their sexual preformance the surgury of circumcision would be adviced against or refused to be preformed by doctors as it causes harm. However it is not so therefore it can not effect sexual performace to anything more then slightly.

Also if a man is getting a circumcision because he wants to get more out of sex they have some kind of issue(s) with their sexual performace that should be addressed properly.

You say:

You do know all those side effects are minimal to the point that the aren't life effecting and/or not noticable right?

But of course it's not noticeable. You've never had anything to compare it to. You can't notice a difference if you've only ever experienced one way. That doesn't mean the difference doesn't exist, or that it isn't significant.

Well you do make a good point but that then brings the question "Has anyone really done a legitimate study that proves or disproves this clam?" because if no one has neither of us can be sure who is right.

 

[Sewora]

No harm is done to the child but there is no medical benift from it, so it's all a matter of personal choice of the parents.

Except for the fact that the child loses a very important muceous membrane that has the same sensitivity as the glans, so his sexual sensation is reduced greatly, his ability to lubricate properly is lost, and the reduction of friction due to the piston-effect is lost, effectively making sex less pleasurable for both the male and female.
Not the mention the medical benefits of having your glans protected at young age.

Oh I don't see how it could possibly be considered as harming the child...

You do know all those side effects are minimal to the point that the aren't life effecting and/or not noticable right? I've never heard someone say "Oh I'm not bad at sex I'm just circumcisied"
And I can personaly tell you sex still works fine but your concern is appreciated.

And the medical benefits of having ones glans protected at a young age (though I don't see age changes anything) is irrelevent because we wear clothing.

Neither can I, but some people just blow things out of proportion...

The textiles are enough to both damage the glans and cause infections. Not to mention the poisons in the air.
If you ask yourself, would you wanna have sex with a woman that has no muceous membrane inside her vagina because she've had it exposed her whole life to cause hardening of the skin and lacks lubrication?

I can answer it for you, the answer is no.

At young age, the foreskin is attached to the glans, it can't be retracted without ripping it apart. At the age of ~3-7 the foreskin naturally detaches from the glans because it's more developed and less sensitive.

Circumsized men doesn't feel less sexually able, and women who are used to circumsized men won't say it's no good.
It's impossible to compare what you have with what you don't have, all you can do is trust those who have foreskins that it does in fact make a difference.

Circumsized men can have it just as good as uncircumsized men sexually, but it usually demands a little more effort. Like using ribbed condoms to emulate foreskin, or artificial lubricants to limit friction during extended intercourse. But should that really be necessary when it can be done the natural way if you in fact have foreskin?

That frankly sounds lovely, but it's just not an option. A North American woman with hairy armpits is a woman who not only never gets laid, she also gets horrified expressions whenever she raises her arms in public. I get rashes, irritation, and ingrown hairs regularly, but I'm still expected to keep my pits and legs 100% hair free. If that's the way the world works, I'm perfectly fine with saying I prefer dicks that don't look like they're wearing turtlenecks, though I admit -- neither is particularly mind-blowing attractive.

The fact is, people do dangerous, degrading or unpalatable things every damn day to look attractive, and this particular issue isn't anywhere near as big a deal as it's made out to be in that light.

I for one wouldn't react that badly to a woman who isn't shaved like a baby. Personally I think it's appealing with pubic hair on a woman because it looks adult.
And I know plenty of women who doesn't shave their armpits or legs to conform. In Sweden it's just as common for women to be expected to shave their bodies, but not everyone does it, and I can assure you that they get laid just as much as everyone else.
It's just a matter of finding a man or woman who isn't so fixated with the idea of how women should look. And quite honestly, why would you even wanna be with someone who thinks you're ugly if you're natural? Doesn't seem very romantic to me.

And believe it or not, men have to shave to. I can personally say that I shave for two reasons,
1) It's itchy to have a beard.
2) I'm expected to look a certain way.

However.. I can choose not to, and that's what we're arguing about here. The choice. You can choose not to conform because you haven't been permanently damaged to fit into a society that demands that you look anything but natural.

 

[ultrabiome]

I'll cry for you the next time I cut myself shaving my entire damn body to conform to weird infantalized standards of beauty.

You don't have to do that if you don't want to.

That frankly sounds lovely, but it's just not an option. A North American woman with hairy armpits is a woman who not only never gets laid, she also gets horrified expressions whenever she raises her arms in public. I get rashes, irritation, and ingrown hairs regularly, but I'm still expected to keep my pits and legs 100% hair free. If that's the way the world works, I'm perfectly fine with saying I prefer dicks that don't look like they're wearing turtlenecks, though I admit -- neither is particularly mind-blowing attractive.

The fact is, people do dangerous, degrading or unpalatable things every damn day to look attractive, and this particular issue isn't anywhere near as big a deal as it's made out to be in that light.

i just want to say that i'm a north american male who doesn't mind female body hair. frankly, the cultural attractiveness of lack of body hair is a little weird in my opinion given that men have been attracted to women who happen to have armpit, crotch and leg hair for thousands of years and only recently have we decided that hair is something that needs to be removed from anywhere that isn't the head or eyebrows. all of that hair serves a function, even with clothing, and even though i admit that excessive hair isn't attractive, i would never ask my wife to shave her hair because i'm not turned off by it (ok, i'll admit shaved legs can be sexy but it would never be a dealbreaker).

and although i'm sure some guys will disagree with me, girls with absolutely no pubic hair isn't a turn on. biologically hair (including armpit and leg) is a sign of sexual maturity, so take from that what you will.

i bet if all women unitedly declared "we will never shave again" i bet most men wouldn't care and the men that do would have to get over it or not have sex again.

 

[mikecoulter]

I suppose it isn't for the parents to decide. But then again I dont even like it when dog owners have their dogs tails shortened...

 

[Comando96]

It's origins are not Religious but practical and then are a cultural tradition that seems to have remained the religious texts.

Reason it exists:
In the desert... There is very little water... Now... For those with a forskin imagine how unhygienic it would be if you couldn't clean under your forskin? Not with toilet paper as they had leaves if lucky. So all that comes out of... "there" remains and festers over time...
Therefore the forskin is removed at birth in the desert countries as it's that... Or in later life their cock will rot and fall off.

This was then entwined into the Religion as part a cultural custom (as were multiple wives due to lots of men dying in war) and... 3500 years later >.>

To be honest I don't give a shit... If I had a child then no I wouldn't but equally I have a forskin... It's what I know and I'm fine with that and I'm sure he would be too...

(Some people mentioned circumcising girls... That sounds... Vastly different and... More info needed >.>)

 

[Aprilgold]

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)


-EDIT-

based on the angry replies i've been getting people seem to think that because i don't think it should be illegal, i must think everyone should be circumcised. i don't really give a shit. i'm not jewish, so i don't have any religious obligation, so i won't if i have a son. i was just curious to see what other people thought.

At least someone else doesn't think that its that important.

I'm circumsized, and I'm not any worse off than anyone else, and I don't care that doctors cut some of my skin off when I was too young to remember it.

Basically, there's no reason parents shouldn't be able to make the choice.

I agree, since you can get the cosmetic look of being uncircumcised back later in life. Parents make 90 different choices for their child within the first year alone. It doesn't really matter because do you think little Tommy is going to be able to choose his room, where he lives, whats his school or if he wants a un-cut willy or a cut willy.

Later on in life it can be very, very painful. And only you or your lover will see your dick, so does it really matter? Its very similar to trying to ban briefs, sure they can squeeze up there, but it doesn't matter because its mainly harmless. Its a barbaric thing, sure, but its harmless in almost every aspect, especially since [I can't remember if this is right] but a baby wouldn't need stitches for the operation, where a adult will.

I don't care, I am not wearing my willy on my head and so it really shouldn't matter, since nobody else is. You'll never get the original skin back, but you can get it to look like your never cut at all. I don't remember when my willy was cut, or any pain that it brought. It should be done at a young age, to avoid, well, I suppose hurt dicks.

My view is that its harmless, just drop it as a whole but keep training doctors in it in case theres a medical emergency for it or someone wants a different dick. Or just keep going, its not exactly harmful later in life, while its barbaric and pretty useless, I don't think it really matters because you can always get your dick to look cut or uncut later in life if you wish.

Circumsized men doesn't feel less sexually able, and women who are used to circumsized men won't say it's no good.
It's impossible to compare what you have with what you don't have, all you can do is trust those who have foreskins that it does in fact make a difference.

Isn't that very hypocritical of you? Didn't you just say that you can't compare something that you have experienced to something that you haven't? Then go onto say that being uncircumcised is a different sexually experience then circumcised? There has been no fact about whether or not being cut or not gives a difference sexually. Its like saying that this ice cream from this shop I go to all the time is better then that Ice Cream over there in a shop you never go to or bought Ice Cream from. There are no facts there to prove that one is better then the other, because its a subjective thing.

Its the same thing with cut or not, its very subjective that its pleasurable. I don't want to start a fuss, but I thought that was just slightly funny.

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.

And why is it acseptible to mutilate your children in a very painfull way due to religous reasons? If there was a religion that required you to clip of the tip of a childs ear, or cut of part of their finger would you be ok with it?

Well the same reason religion [come on now, you know its going to be the big C here] allows you to commit rape, as long as you pay the father some money and marry her child, then you can kill the child on the night of the wedding for not being pure because you raped her and still get into heaven.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

Too many words like mutilate and dismember are flying around. Guys relax it's a tiny hood of skin. Everything works the same and pretty much looks almost the same (of course there are extreme cases in both parties).

I'm totally OK with it and I have yet to meet a woman that actually gives enough crap about it to change anything. This is one of the most pathetic arguments ever. Some people don't have a foreskin. Get over it!

 

[Lord Laharl's Vassal]

I'm totally OK with it and I have yet to meet a woman that actually gives enough crap about it to change anything. This is one of the most pathetic arguments ever. Some people don't have a foreskin. Get over it!

The problem is not the fact that certain men does not have foreskin, the real problem is that men gets their foreskin stolen from them as baby boys before they can decide whether or not getting circumcised is the best for them. Let each man decide what is best for their own dick!

 

[CODE-D]

I think there have been too many threads about a topic we cant do anything about.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

I'm totally OK with it and I have yet to meet a woman that actually gives enough crap about it to change anything. This is one of the most pathetic arguments ever. Some people don't have a foreskin. Get over it!

The problem is not the fact that certain men does not have foreskin, the real problem is that men gets their foreskin stolen from them as baby boys before they can decide whether or not getting circumcised is the best for them. Let each man decide what is best for their own dick!

Yea but I'm saying why sit there and worry about it when it doesn't make any difference. Whether it was stolen or not, I'm sure we all have better things to think about. Don't get me wrong. I understand the concern here and I sympathize. It's just that this issue should have expired.

 

[Lord Laharl's Vassal]

Yea but I'm saying why sit there and worry about it when it doesn't make any difference.

How can say it makes no difference when several men who have been circumcised later in life have said that their penis became less sensitive as a result of the circumcision? Even if there also are men who claim they became more sensitive, should it not be each man?s decision of whether or not he wants to take that risk?

Whether it was stolen or not, I'm sure we all have better things to think about.

Sexuality is one the most significant aspects of any human being?s life, this topic involves removing skin from men?s main sexual organ without their permission, to not care about it would be trivializing men?s sexuality. Sexuality should not be trivialized or demonized in any shape or form, it should treated with love, respect, care and understanding.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concern here and I sympathize. It's just that this issue should have expired.

Circumcision of children should not have existed in the first place.

 

[Tekkawarrior]

Yea but I'm saying why sit there and worry about it when it doesn't make any difference.

How can say it makes no difference when several men who have been circumcised later in life have said that their penis became less sensitive as a result of the circumcision? Even if there also are men who claim they became more sensitive, should it not be each man?s decision of whether or not he wants to take that risk?

Whether it was stolen or not, I'm sure we all have better things to think about.

Sexuality is one the most significant aspects of any human being?s life, this topic involves removing skin from men?s main sexual organ without their permission, to not care about it would be trivializing men?s sexuality. Sexuality should not be trivialized or demonized in any shape or form, it should treated with love, respect, care and understanding.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concern here and I sympathize. It's just that this issue should have expired.

Circumcision of children should not have existed in the first place.

I don't mean to offend but I think continuing this argument is useless. We are not on the same wave length. I respect your opinion 100% but it's not what I'm talking about.