Should infants be circumcised? -

drakan90 · #31 06-09-2005, 01:01 AM

I'm guessing you guys are mostly American, yeah?
Because in England optional circumsision is (to my knowledge) basically unheard of.

Facsimile · #32 06-09-2005, 02:44 AM

:

I'm guessing you guys are mostly American, yeah?
Because in England optional circumsision is (to my knowledge) basically unheard of.

What do you mean by optional? Does that mean everyone has it or everyone doesn't?

soulstice · #33 06-09-2005, 08:16 AM

:

What do you mean by optional? Does that mean everyone has it or everyone doesn't?

Hardly anyone in Britain is circumcised. Mainly the Muslim and Jewish communities practice circumcision. Otherwise, probably nearly all men here aren't circumcised. As for female circumcision, it's outlawed here. I think female circumcision is a crime against humanity. During sex, a woman with a mutilated clitoris will actually experience great pain. Basically, the tribes that practice female circumcision usually care about 'honour' and things like that, so they mutilate young women's clitorises so that they aren't promiscuous and don't bring 'shame' to their family and tribe. One tribeswoman on a BBC documentary said that women's vaginas should only be used to have children and only by one man. I heard that in Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, women's clitorises are burnt with very hot rocks, and remember-they don't have any anaesthetic.

Jacob · #34 06-09-2005, 03:14 PM

'I heard that in Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, women's clitorises are burnt with very hot rocks, and remember-they don't have any anaesthetic.'

For f*cks sake, do they not know that women are the pinacle of evolution and are actually at the top of the evolutionary ladder?!

Though, i am a bit weary when it comes to Tribal shtuffs. As i hate the fact that many of the original, native tribes are steadily becoming westernised and suffering from it (alkohol abuse, drug abuse etc) and losing their traditional values.

However, if they're not tribes people and are quite aware of their surroundings and do it purely 'cos they're c*nts, we should bomb the Hell out of them.

Iraqi-styleeeee.

***Alcar*** · #35 06-09-2005, 03:56 PM

Yeah, I don't see the point in female 'circumcision'. Which is also why I don't see the point in male circumcision. It is as bad as mutilating your body. Just because the vast majority of people who are circumcised have it done as infants, and therefore you don't remember it, doesn't make it okay.

Would you chop off your pinky toe? No, I don't think so. Yet it is also utterly useless. So why mutilate the sexual organs of all things? It is barbaric. Why I understand that it is practice in Judaisim, that doesn't dismiss its barbaric-ness solely on it being religious. That's like saying ritual killings in cult religions is okay because its part of the religion - though not too that extent of course.

Alcar...

Dino · #36 06-09-2005, 04:45 PM

:

Would you chop off your pinky toe? No, I don't think so. Yet it is also utterly useless.

That argument doesn't hold much merit. Niether the foreskin nor the small toe is useless, they both serve important functions. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to explain what those functions are. It's about time you people educated yourself.

:

For f*cks sake, do they not know that women are the pinacle of evolution and are actually at the top of the evolutionary ladder?!

Why is it that I only ever hear this kind of thing from homosexuals, crackpot "scientific discoveries" in womens magazine articles and saggy-breasted hairy-legged womens rights activists?

***Nate*** · #37 06-09-2005, 07:00 PM

:

Would you chop off your pinky toe? No, I don't think so. Yet it is also utterly useless. So why mutilate the sexual organs of all things? It is barbaric. Why I understand that it is practice in Judaisim, that doesn't dismiss its barbaric-ness solely on it being religious. That's like saying ritual killings in cult religions is okay because its part of the religion - though not too that extent of course.

Except there is no ongoing harmful effect of male circumcision. There is ongoing harmful effect of female circumcision (painful sex, male domination etc) and chopping off you're pinky toe (limping, loss of balance, looks damn freaky, etc).

:

The foreskin is there for a reason. Like Alcar mentioned, you loose a lot of sensitivity. Circumcision was created by some religous nuts who wanted to prevent their children from masturbating. Less sensitivity means you become less likely to be aroused, so they hoped it would eliminate masturbation. It didn't really work out that way...

Bullshit. It was created by religious nuts in 1500BC (Before Cleanliness)who noticed that guys without a foreskin had significantly less chance of infections, smegma and whatnot.

There is a justifiable argument then that circumcision is not still needed today but seeing as it causes no harm, then there is no problem

And, yes, I did just want the chance to use the word 'smegma'.

AquaticAmbi · #38 06-09-2005, 07:44 PM

:

Why is it that I only ever hear this kind of thing from homosexuals, crackpot "scientific discoveries" in womens magazine articles and saggy-breasted hairy-legged womens rights activists?

I'm neither homosexual, nor do I have saggy breasts and hairy legs, but I certainly agree with what Jacob said.

Kidding, of couse.

Oof, the description of female circumcision makes me wince at just the thought. (And so does the word smegma.) I suppose that's how some of you guys may feel towards male circumcision, although as far as I know, there aren't as many negative side effects. Sure, you may lose some sensitivity, but you don't experience pain during sex.

However, I have heard that it can lead to increased chances of premature ejaculation... Is that true? I would almost think that if those that still have more sensitivity with the foreskin would have the increased chance.

On a side (and vain) note, I agree that uncircumcised penises look like wobbles, whatever those things are.

MojoMan220 · #39 06-09-2005, 08:04 PM

:

Bullshit. It was created by religious nuts in 1500BC (Before Cleanliness)who noticed that guys without a foreskin had significantly less chance of infections, smegma and whatnot.

A little soap is all that you need to protect against infection. Of course us Americans find that to be a real pain in the ass.

Dino · #40 06-09-2005, 08:05 PM

I don't mean to sound like I'm stereotyping of course... but y'know, tell 'em what they want to hear, and they'll believe it! Just like religion. "There is an afterlife"... "there's a god and he loves you"... "all your sins are forgiven"... Wishful thinking. God certainly has quite a macabre sense of humour for a being so loving.

Dino · #41 06-09-2005, 08:10 PM

:

A little soap is all that you need to protect against infection. Of course us Americans find that to be a real pain in the ass.

I can't believe you took that even semi seriously...

"who noticed that guys without a foreskin" YEAH cause there was this bunch of guys who just happened to not have a foreskin, mostly during the great onionring shortage of 1504BC, and then there was this OTHER bunch of guys who just happened to be looking at dicks... mostly during the great brothel shortage of 1504BC, yep, all sounds like a totally legitimate argument to me. Nate was definately making a serious point there.

MojoMan220 · #42 06-09-2005, 08:32 PM

I really don't think I have to explain myself! Actually it's pretty late (early), I wasn't really sure what he said, but I saw infection in there somewhere, so I thought I might throw something on the table.

soulstice · #43 06-10-2005, 08:42 AM

:

On a side (and vain) note, I agree that uncircumcised penises look like wobbles, whatever those things are.

Are circumcised penises meant to look better? Nope. Unless you want it to look disproportionate, that is.

drakan90 · #44 06-10-2005, 09:10 AM

"Why is it that I only ever hear this kind of thing from homosexuals, crackpot "scientific discoveries" in womens magazine articles and saggy-breasted hairy-legged womens rights activists?"

No no no no, its because we all like ladies cos they're nice to look at!...apart from, y'know, fat ugly ones and stuff...I'm stop this right here...before some girls come beat me up...

Oh you guys do realise we're talking about how good different cocks look, right? Shouldnt we...y'know...just not? :-P

Jacob · #45 06-10-2005, 03:24 PM

'Why is it that I only ever hear this kind of thing from homosexuals, crackpot "scientific discoveries" in womens magazine articles and saggy-breasted hairy-legged womens rights activists?'

Because we're evolved enough to know *Tuts* Silly Muffy.

'However, I have heard that it can lead to increased chances of premature ejaculation...'

That would explain a lot. When they complained i was "too fast" i always thought they were just jealous of my running capabilities...*Sigh*

***Alcar*** · #46 06-10-2005, 06:32 PM

:

Except there is no ongoing harmful effect of male circumcision. There is ongoing harmful effect of female circumcision (painful sex, male domination etc) and chopping off you're pinky toe (limping, loss of balance, looks damn freaky, etc).

Erm, your pinky toe is the useless toe. It's the big toe which balances. Which is why I referred to the pinky toe, because I thought everyone was smart enough to realise that when I refer to pinky, I do not mean 'big'.

There's no point to it. Still, if you want to, it's your decision. But I don't know why you'd sacrifice all that pleasure. As for the look of circumcised and uncircumcised penises, I don't really see much difference. It's a penis. Not your face.

Alcar...

TheRaisin · #47 06-10-2005, 08:46 PM

Or... is it?

The whole concept of female circumcision makes me queasy. Although, comparing it to male circumcision, it is certainly... comparable. In some ways at least. I think this thread has made me opinionated. I'm now personally against circumcision at birth. If an adult is adamant enough to want to mutilate his or her own genitals, they can go right ahead. Otherwise, things should be left the way they are.

Nepharski · #48 06-10-2005, 08:46 PM

I was quite disappointed with my vagueness of my previous post in this thread, so I checked some stuff so I could re-assert my position, this time sans the aforementioned vagueness. Some of this may be, "Well, no duh," but I'm writing it all down just in case.

Moving right along.

All males are born with, basically, a flap of skin over the head of the penis; a natural sleave made of skin for your nether region, so to speak. And that's all it is...loose skin. It serves no desernable purpose. It's like the appendix; Maybe it served some long-forgotton purpose in the womb, but now that you're alive and one your own, it's utterly useless. Circumcision is simply cutting off this natural, "sleave." It doesn't reduce size or potency or any crap like that.

Now, there are a few, small benefits to being circumcised. Obviously, there are very few (Believe me...if there were a lot, EVERYONE would be getting circumcised). To start with, there are the previously mentioned diseases, but those are so rare, that it's not a big risk at all. It's really a matter of convienience, really. There is one thing that sleave excells at...collecting bacteria and gunk from the surrounding evironment. Now, if that's your thing, whatever. But for those of us whose hobbies to not include cultivating a colony of bacteria in our genital area, we've got to clean it out...that is, those of us who are not circumcised. If you are, those things just come off in the shower like everything else. If you're not...well, you've got some cleaning to do, haven't you?

On top of this, I've heard that there is a sensitivity thing to. This flap isupposedly makes sex somewhat less comfortable, and removing it is supposed to make it less painful, and more...pleasureable. I say supposedly, because I myself have no experience or personal knowledge for comparision. Maybe the doctors are wrong. I dont' know.

That's the value of circumcision (Sans all religious significance). Now, as all of you can plainly see...that's not a whole lot. Well, that's why it's optional then, isn't it. But I will tell you this: It's better to be circumcised as an infant, on the 8th day of being alive. Why? Circumcision...it's supposed to be a dreadfully painful experience. Not only that, but it takes weeks to recover, as some of my dad's old navy buddies would testify to. HOWEVER, on the 8th day of being born, doctors have discovered an interesting phenomenon. For that day, and that day alone, the vitamin K in your blood spikes; raises sky high! Vitamin K is what's responsible for blood clotting, mind you. All doctors would confirm that that is the best possible day to get circumcised, if you don't want to be sore for weeks afterwards, that is.

Finally, I'd like to finish with the roots of circumcision, which have nothing to do with masterbation (Sorry Mojoman. Less sensitivity means it's less uncomfortable, like I stated earlier). As far as I can see, a historical figure known only as Abraham was suppossedly told my God, that if he put his absolute faith and trust in him, that he would grant him desendants far too numerous to count (For those of you who think Abraham was a goober for this, it would serve to note that he is technically the forefather of every Arab and Hebrew on the face of the Earth). For those of us who read the Bible, Abraham made a covenant with God; that he, and every male member of his family (No mention of female members, though) would be circumcised (It also says that all infants should preferably be circumcised on the 8th day...hmmm). The Hebrews, and I would think the Arabs, still do it to this day. As do Christians, I suppose keeping in with their heritage or something, and other people, for the various reasons I listed earlier.

That's it, I think.

Dino · #49 06-10-2005, 08:50 PM

:

No no no no, its because we all like ladies cos they're nice to look at!

I didn't know that you were homosexual, drakan.

:

Oh you guys do realise we're talking about how good different cocks look, right? Shouldnt we...y'know...just not? :-P

Why should that be a problem for a gay guy such as yourself?

:

Erm, your pinky toe is the useless toe. It's the big toe which balances. Which is why I referred to the pinky toe, because I thought everyone was smart enough to realise that when I refer to pinky, I do not mean 'big'.

Don't patronise me Alcar, I knew exactly what you meant by "pinky toe", the clue was when I said "smallest toe", since "pinky toe" sounds rediculous. It's not "useless", it has a purpose. If it was useless, then it would be almost evolved out of us by now. However, it's still there, the same size it's always been.

Dino · #50 06-10-2005, 08:59 PM

:

It serves no desernable purpose. It's like the appendix; Maybe it served some long-forgotton purpose in the womb, but now that you're alive and one your own, it's utterly useless.

Nepharski... I don't mean to sound rude but in this instance... you really obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The foreskin actually makes sex more pleasureable, and in some cases is the only thing that triggers an orgasm. Without it, these particular people are unable to achieve an orgasm, and therefore never ejaculate. To that end, it is vital to the continuation of the human race.

Now, with that in mind, try telling me that it's useless.

Also, the appendix is believed by most physicians to've been where cellulose was digested in the evolutionary predecessor to the modern human.

Nepharski · #51 06-10-2005, 09:16 PM

:

Nepharski... I don't mean to sound rude but in this instance... you really obviously don't know what you're talking about.

The foreskin actually makes sex more pleasureable, and in some cases is the only thing that triggers an orgasm. Without it, these particular people are unable to achieve an orgasm, and therefore never ejaculate. To that end, it is vital to the continuation of the human race.

Now, with that in mind, try telling me that it's useless.

Also, the appendix is believed by most physicians to've been where cellulose was digested in the evolutionary predecessor to the modern human.

Really? I don't mean to be crude, but I have been circumcised, and have no trouble ejaculating whatsoever. My father was circumcised, and still fathered two children. I'm afraid it's rather obvious that it is you who is in the dark...unless I am a figment of my own imagination.

...You where saying?

EDIT: As for the appendix, I said it did serve some purpose in the past...but it is no longer vital or important now.

***Alcar*** · #52 06-10-2005, 09:19 PM

:

All males are born with, basically, a flap of skin over the head of the penis; a natural sleave made of skin for your nether region, so to speak. And that's all it is...loose skin. It serves no desernable purpose. It's like the appendix; Maybe it served some long-forgotton purpose in the womb, but now that you're alive and one your own, it's utterly useless. Circumcision is simply cutting off this natural, "sleave." It doesn't reduce size or potency or any crap like that.

So, just because it serves no purpose, we should all go out and get it removed? Like I said earlier, why stop at that? Why not remove our pinky toes as well? Or our appendix?

:

Now, there are a few, small benefits to being circumcised. Obviously, there are very few (Believe me...if there were a lot, EVERYONE would be getting circumcised). To start with, there are the previously mentioned diseases, but those are so rare, that it's not a big risk at all. It's really a matter of convienience, really. There is one thing that sleave excells at...collecting bacteria and gunk from the surrounding evironment. Now, if that's your thing, whatever. But for those of us whose hobbies to not include cultivating a colony of bacteria in our genital area, we've got to clean it out...that is, those of us who are not circumcised. If you are, those things just come off in the shower like everything else. If you're not...well, you've got some cleaning to do, haven't you?

I have to ask, Nepharski, are you circumcised? Because you don't sound like you know what you're talking about. Bacteria / etc basically only cultivates on the penis with the buildup of smegma and other grime. However, it is basically only prevalent in pre-pubescent males where the foreskin has not detached from the glans-penis. When the foreskin has detached, I can honestly say that being non-circumcised, I did not have a problem with any 'build-up'. And I'm talking way back in the day when my showers were weeks in-between. Though, that was probably because masturbating somewhat causes you to clean up. And if I remember, you're a strict Christian... So perhaps you do have a problem there with it building up.

:

On top of this, I've heard that there is a sensitivity thing to. This flap isupposedly makes sex somewhat less comfortable, and removing it is supposed to make it less painful, and more...pleasureable. I say supposedly, because I myself have no experience or personal knowledge for comparision. Maybe the doctors are wrong. I dont' know.

The foreskin does nothing of the sort. It makes it more comfortable, not to mention all that extra sensitivity. Removing the foreskin does reduce sensitivity, go look it up, it is well documented.

Finally, I'd just like to mention that I cannot honestly see how men masturbate without a foreskin. I know they do the same thing, but, it's the foreskin which provides the pleasure. Not to mention the friction would be worse

Alcar...

Leto · #53 06-10-2005, 09:21 PM

I personally do not see how removing the foreskin could increase chances of ejaculation. From a logical standpoint, it seems that the foreskin acts as a form of making ejaculation easier. But then again, as I am uncircumcised, I guess I have no say in the matter, unless I go out and circumcise my self and root the nearest object in sight.

But I'm not that desperate...

There. We can all sp33k like adults. Luckily Stingbee isn't here, or he'd go "PEN15! lol".

Nepharski · #54 06-10-2005, 09:42 PM

*Sigh.*

Wow...what were the odds of this happening...again.

Alcar, I can garuntee 100% that I have been circumcised (Warning! Before and after illustrations of process.).* I highly doubt that my father, doctors, internet information pages, and my text book would simultaneously lie to me. I have no problem ejaculating, and there is no, "friction." Removing it does not increase or decrease chances of ejaculation.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that I support the emidiate circumcision of everyone. Not so! I was simply stating that there is more to it than just some old Jewish custom. You don't have to emediately remove it, or even remove it at all. But if you wanted to, there certainly are other reasons.

And yes, I do know that it decreases sensitivity...but I'm not quite sure if it's in the way you seem to mean.

As far as grime goes, I've heard mixed reports in both directions.

***Alcar*** · #55 06-10-2005, 10:01 PM

:

Alcar, I can garuntee 100% that I have been circumcised (Warning! Before and after illustrations of process.).* I highly doubt that my father, doctors, internet information pages, and my text book would simultaneously lie to me. I have no problem ejaculating, and there is no, "friction." Removing it does not increase or decrease chances of ejaculation.

I wasn't saying you weren't circumcised or not. I said I wasn't sure. But it's good to know. I don't believe you'd have any problems ejaculating either, I never mentioned that. But I did mention friction, as I just can't see how friction would not occur. While the penis can self-lubricate itself, it is a lot harder without it being trapped in the foreskin.

:

Also, you seem to be suggesting that I support the emidiate circumcision of everyone. Not so! I was simply stating that there is more to it than just some old Jewish custom. You don't have to emediately remove it, or even remove it at all. But if you wanted to, there certainly are other reasons.

No, I do not think you support the immediate removal of foreskin. That's absurd.

Alcar...

Nepharski · #56 06-10-2005, 10:05 PM

Meh...oh well. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that nether side is disadvantaged. Circumcised people aren't sexually disadvantaged or anything, is my real point. At least I got to clear up the origin, and Dino's apparent confusion. Nice discussion anyway, Alcar.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a fanfic to write.

drakan90 · #57 06-11-2005, 02:40 AM

"I didn't know that you were homosexual, drakan."

When I said we, I was refering to guys,
And you dont know anything about me anyway ':-I

Jacob · #58 06-11-2005, 07:02 AM

Circumcised penis' are more pleasant to look at, HOWEVER, the removal of the foreskin does reduce sensitivity. There's a new procedure in Brazil to stop premature ejaculation, part of that procedure is to cut some nerve endings, but the other part is to circumcise the male.

Also, in '89 the Cameron study was published and reported an 8.2 times higher risk of HIV infection among uncircumcised men.

On the downside for my Muffy cohorts, however, is that circumcised penis' have problems with female "dryness" (lovely(!)) Oh well.

AquaticAmbi · #59 06-11-2005, 08:10 AM

That's nothing a little K-Y can't fix.

*Ahem*...

Anyway, as for the earlier discussed comparison of percentages of circumcision in the U.S. to other countries, I read that 55% of American males are. So it's about half and half over here. I feel silly for never giving thought to how it could such a difference in other developed countries.

MojoMan220 · #60 06-11-2005, 11:07 AM

:

And that's all it is...loose skin.

The males foreskin also acts much like how a condom does... I'll let you think about that one. We've already gone over a number of the other benefits, so I'm not going to be a broken record.

:

There is one thing that sleave excells at...collecting bacteria and gunk from the surrounding evironment.

Once again, that is what showering is for, and as we all know, it's not difficult to get a male to rub his penis in the shower...

:

On top of this, I've heard that there is a sensitivity thing to. This flap isupposedly makes sex somewhat less comfortable, and removing it is supposed to make it less painful, and more...pleasureable. I say supposedly, because I myself have no experience or personal knowledge for comparision. Maybe the doctors are wrong. I dont' know.

That is absolutely correct! You don't know. This little flap actually makes sex more pleasurable to the male and to the female. Women unexperienced with the intact organ find it to be nasty. This is much like a child who has never tasted ice cream before, people are afraid of new things. In fact, most women who have had the experience, say that sex is much better with an uncircumcised penis. How do I know this? There have been many forum discussions and statistics that say the exact same thing. Because of the greater sensitivity the guy doesn't have to push so hard in the act, and overall it is just much more comfortable. Now when you remove it, it can be more painful depending on the amount of skin removed. Sometimes this is negligible, but sometimes it can ruin your sex life. Viagra anyone??

:

Finally, I'd like to finish with the roots of circumcision, which have nothing to do with masterbation (Sorry Mojoman. Less sensitivity means it's less uncomfortable, like I stated earlier).

No, sorry to say you're wrong. I'll bring forth more facts later, but I'm done for now.

Here's a site with more informationhttp://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/