Queries about circumcision

[subtlefuge]

He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.

I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.

That's the thing, many laws in the Bible have to do with survival in the ancient world, like Kosher law. However, most of these were abandoned by Christianity pretty quickly, and have slowly been phased out by many practicing members of Judaism. It seems strange that the one mutilation law is the one that was all but stopped centuries ago and then brought back.

I'm Christian, and I don't fault my parents for circumcising me, but I have no plans on doing the same to any potential sons I have. It feels wrong to have someone give up a part of them without them having any knowledge, for a benefit that has been unnecessary for millennia.

 

[Freechoice]

If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.

War is unavoidable. We can make a law against mutilating small children. In fact, we did, but for the gender it would never apply to (in this not shitty part of the world).

 

[Aprilgold]

If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.

War is unavoidable. We can make a law against mutilating small children. In fact, we did, but for the gender it would never apply to (in this not shitty part of the world).

War isn't unavoidable if we, as a population, were united with a cause of furthering humanities's long term, instead of short term wins against others for what we should share. Is it hopeful, very much so, but is it impossible, no. In the times of now with such things as the interenet where it literally takes a second to request help anywhere in the world, were seeing a change from less divided cultures hell bent on getting as much power as possible, and more towards a giant database of equal understanding and help.

Once again, its hopeful, but stating that war of all things is unavoidable, when it is if you take the right precautions in mind.

And as I said before, my opinion isn't changing. Making small changes to just regular bigotry will hopefully change the world for the better, but arguing over small details won't help. Circumcision does not harm many and often times is required for a medical procedure, I do not care that I am cut because it doesn't change how I am in and out of bed.

He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.

I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.

That's the thing, many laws in the Bible have to do with survival in the ancient world, like Kosher law. However, most of these were abandoned by Christianity pretty quickly, and have slowly been phased out by many practicing members of Judaism. It seems strange that the one mutilation law is the one that was all but stopped centuries ago and then brought back.

I'm Christian, and I don't fault my parents for circumcising me, but I have no plans on doing the same to any potential sons I have. It feels wrong to have someone give up a part of them without them having any knowledge, for a benefit that has been unnecessary for millennia.

To each their own. I'm not changing it, granted I may or may not decide when it comes time to circumcise my child, but it doesn't matter at all, does it?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)

Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.

 

[Maze1125]

Everyone who argues against circumcision treats it likes its the worst thing since Hitler fucked your mother with a atomic bomb. There are more things to be upset about and I'm honestly done having to fucking say this over and over again.

This is my opinion, and your not changing it, same way your not changing it on religion, which I think can burn in their type of hell. Either take your bullshit "BUT ITS WRONG" shit out until you realize there are so many things wrong with humanity that matter more that we should fix now, and leave this for later.

There's that same fallacy again.
It's possible to care about more than one thing.
My work in creating world peace is a long term project that leaves me with spare time. Obviously with the majority of that spare time I work on subtly subverting the American government into enacting greater gun control laws, but even that doesn't take up the entirety of my life. So, with the rest of the time, I argue on the internet about circumcision being performed on infants.

before they can actually process pain,

What part of your arse are you pulling that out of?

 

[Superior Mind]

Not ignorant, irrational.

Is the difference especially meaningful here?

I guess not. I suppose I'm trying to determine the difference between not being a medical expert and making decisions based on what information is available to you/what you understand, (ignorance,) and thinking inoculations inject government mind-control serums, (irrational.)

Circumcision for religious or aesthetic reasons seems to err on the more irrational side. It's unnecessary surgery, however minor, and the reasons are either not sufficient to warrant it, (aesthetic,) or based on nothing more than superstition. I don't think male circumcision's all that bad but if we're really going to discuss whether we think it's moral or ethical for a parent to get to decide to unnecessarily alter their child's body then I'd say that I don't. It's not giving doctor's authority over parents either, not really. Remember circumcision is rarely a medical necessity nor can it said to be beneficial.

I think of kind of like this: If a parent were to insist that due to religious or other reasons they deemed it necessary for their child's appendix to be removed any doctor would say no. Just assume for the sake of argument that an appendectomy had the same health risks as a surgical circumcision, (as opposed to a metzitzah b'peh circumcision which may even have more health risks.) Now the child won't miss the appendix, it won't impact on their life at all, unlike circumcision it wouldn't even leave any visible trace except for maybe a scar. But we wouldn't accept it. And the reason we wouldn't accept it is because it's wrong to commit someone to unnecessary surgery without their knowledge or consent. It's why most rational people cringe at some of the more invasive versions of female circumcision.

I dunno, that makes sense to me anyway.

(Also sorry for dragging you back into this thread I just wanted to respond and clear my own thinking up.)

 

[JimB]

Also, sorry for dragging you back into this thread. I just wanted to respond and clear my own thinking up.

Nah, you're good. Don't have much to say right now, though, so might forget to come back to this later. No offense.

 

[Jonluw]

The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)

Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.

Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)

Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.

Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."

So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.

 

[Aprilgold]

snip

What part of your arse are you pulling that out of?[/quote]

Once again, I don't give a damn, so you guys can stop quoting me trying to... Do nothing? Its literally the same exact thing repeatedly and I honestly don't care past the 7th time reading the exact same arguement every 10 minutes.

 

[Jonluw]

Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."

So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.

Sensitivity is an individual thing after all.
Chances are you'd be more sensitive if you weren't circumcised though.
There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin as well.

To try to explain the difference in sensitivity, I can give you this example:
When you go for a walk, your glans penis (i.e., the head) is in contact with your underpants.
I'm assuming this doesn't bother you.
When an uncircumcised man goes for a walk, the foreskin lies between the glans and the underpants.
If, by chance, the foreskin rolls back he is in the same situation as a circumcised man.
His reaction is different to that of the circumcised man though.
He might start walking funny for starters, and try to straighten up his pants a bit with discreet movements. Then he'll start looking around for somewhere he can put his hand down his pants inconcspicuously to remedy the situation.
Basically, for an uncircumcised man the stuff you deal with on a daily basis is really annoying. Such a situation might leave him unable to focus on much else.

 

[CODE-D]

These threads always make my penis feel naked.

 

[Maze1125]

Once again, I don't give a damn, so you guys can stop quoting me trying to... Do nothing? Its literally the same exact thing repeatedly and I honestly don't care past the 7th time reading the exact same arguement every 10 minutes.

If you care so little, why do you keep posting?
We're only responding to the things you say.

Why do I keep saying the same things? Because I DO care. What's your excuse?

 

[Freechoice]

Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."

So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.

Sensitivity is an individual thing after all.
Chances are you'd be more sensitive if you weren't circumcised though.
There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin as well.

To try to explain the difference in sensitivity, I can give you this example:
When you go for a walk, your glans penis (i.e., the head) is in contact with your underpants.
I'm assuming this doesn't bother you.
When an uncircumcised man goes for a walk, the foreskin lies between the glans and the underpants.
If, by chance, the foreskin rolls back he is in the same situation as a circumcised man.
His reaction is different to that of the circumcised man though.
He might start walking funny for starters, and try to straighten up his pants a bit with discreet movements. Then he'll start looking around for somewhere he can put his hand down his pants inconcspicuously to remedy the situation.
Basically, for an uncircumcised man the stuff you deal with on a daily basis is really annoying. Such a situation might leave him unable to focus on much else.

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

 

[Archroy]

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.

 

[Freechoice]

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.

So if I understand circumcision correctly, doesn't that mean the constant abrasion from articles of clothing invariably desensitizes the penis so that the chafing eventually subsides?

 

[Jonluw]

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It isn't painful, but it's horribly annoying and distracting.
Although the sensation is not the same, it's sort of like if someone keeps poking you while you're walking. Just a really annoying and uncomfortable sensation.
Really frustrating when you're in public since it's not like you can stick your hand down your pants.

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.

So if I understand circumcision correctly, doesn't that mean the constant abrasion from articles of clothing invariably desensitizes the penis so that the chafing eventually subsides?

Yeah, the skin on the glans gets harder and thicker.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

The only reason your parents, and their parents, did it is because of some whacked out religious belief/tradition that has little place in modern society.

Except that some people, regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof, have to do it for medical reasons where there's no ultimately sufficient alternative.

I think it's not hard to extrapolate that what I meant was that's why it's widespread, not why it's done in all cases. All sorts of appendages get sliced up as treatment, dick included.

OK, fair enough.

To anyone that was annoyed by the resurgence of another topic like this, I apologize that I didn't bother to search. It was just an immediate query that I wanted to have some insight into, but I guess there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Freechoice]

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It isn't painful, but it's horribly annoying and distracting.
Although the sensation is not the same, it's sort of like if someone keeps poking you while you're walking. Just a really annoying and uncomfortable sensation.
Really frustrating when you're in public since it's not like you can stick your hand down your pants.

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.

So if I understand circumcision correctly, doesn't that mean the constant abrasion from articles of clothing invariably desensitizes the penis so that the chafing eventually subsides?

Yeah, the skin on the glans gets harder and thicker.

And that doesn't change the nature of the nerve endings in the glans? As in desensitizes them?

 

[Jonluw]

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It isn't painful, but it's horribly annoying and distracting.
Although the sensation is not the same, it's sort of like if someone keeps poking you while you're walking. Just a really annoying and uncomfortable sensation.
Really frustrating when you're in public since it's not like you can stick your hand down your pants.

So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?

It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.

So if I understand circumcision correctly, doesn't that mean the constant abrasion from articles of clothing invariably desensitizes the penis so that the chafing eventually subsides?

Yeah, the skin on the glans gets harder and thicker.

And that doesn't change the nature of the nerve endings in the glans? As in desensitizes them?

It doesn't change the nature of the nerve endings themselves, but it creates a thicker barrier between the nerve endings and the point of contact.
So it does desensitize the glans, yes.