Queries about circumcision

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Relish in Chaos:
For more info, check this site out: http://www.circinfo.com/index.html

In another discussion I linked a link from that site. You know what happened? Ad Hominem happened; lots and lots of it. Most of the arguments I see around it are fairly arbitrary and anecdotal in nature. Ultimately it's more the knowledge of it that creates a controversy based on people's personal sense of ethics, not the procedure itself. In that case, I have difficulty giving a shit about it.

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

Hammeroj:

Relish in Chaos:

Hammeroj:
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.

Kendarik:

Hammeroj:
Here we go.

And you think religious religious are more important than anything, why, exactly?

That's not what he said, is it? Go back and read it again, then you might be able to comment intelligently.

Since when is "the minute chance of fuck-ups" not covered by 'anything'? Unless the guy mistyped, I'm pretty sure I understood his point to the fullest extent. He views religious views as important to some degree, I'm asking why.

See, if I say I like chips better than anything that means I like chips more than everything else in the universe (sex, candy, true love, immortality, EVERYTHING).

If I say I like chips more than cookies it means just that and nothing else. Understand yet? NO?

Okay, what he said was that he considers "religious reasons" more important than one fairly specific thing which he considers unlikely to occur. I have no information to give on the probability of it myself, but the language is pretty clear.

I have been "genitally mutilated" since i was a young child.
From what i can guess, theres basically no change from being uncircumcised, though i have never been. Sex is.... well sex. Its not bad, but im not the kind of guy who will jump through hoops for it. My wife says shes not in the mood? I go play Dark Souls and Chill with my boy Havel for a bit. (Once you get past the whole "trying to crush you alive" thing, hes a really sweet guy)

Ive had times where i disappointed my wife ((Only happened twice, but it has happened)), and ive had times where im going long after shes ready to finish. I think it really all comes down to your level of sexual activity. Chances are you'll be just as good at it, or better, then someone uncircumcised based on your level of endurance.

In the end, a penis is a penis. Weather circumcised or not, sex is still going to make you happy (to a certain extent. Money makes me happier then sex. Id rather take 200$ over sex with any supermodel, because sex is a one time thing, and im the kinda guy who likes long term value). So, keep your head up, dont dwell on it, and if you end up being terrible at sex, blame your parents. I did that with driving, handling large sums of money, and dancing. I think being a good dancer is somewhere genetic. Short of a tangoooooo~ or a slow dance, i cant bust a groove to save my life.

As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

Yeah, I don't care what you do with your child and yourself. If you want to have your child circumcised, that's your decision. I hope that you keep it private, among your close friends and family, and in the appropriate context. I do not care how close we get, the last thing I want to hear in a bar or a restaurant is that you are considering circumcising your child. At the hospital would be better.

Now that I said that, I need to get back to reading about hoe moviebob is such a meanie for not agreeing with me this week on something.

Reginald the Butler:
As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

But why?
Why do something physically painful to a child "just because"?

We vaccinate to protect from childhood diseases, but the only thing circumcision has been proven to protect against are a few STDs, something no-one should have to worry about until they're old enough to consider the pros and cons for themselves.

A vaccination is far far less painful than circumcision, and if it had no proven health benefits, there's no way I'd even do that to my child.
Ignoring the mutilation argument entirely, tradition is no reason to cause a child pain, no matter how minor. And circumcision isn't minor.

Daystar Clarion:
Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

Agreed, though it's my understanding that most North American men are circumcised.

I was baffled, and queried my pen pal in the throes of sympathy pains about that when I found out.

I guess it'll just be a surprise for the American lasses when I go over there for university.

WHY WOULD YOU START THIS THREAD? D:

Fine.

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

Will I circumcise my sons? I dunno lol. I'll play it by ear based on what's recommended by the doctor and what my wife feels about it. I don't think it makes significant enough of a difference to make the hilariously big deal that people like to make of it.

Reginald the Butler:
As someone else mentioned, uncircumcised penises just look... well, weird. In fact when I was a kid I never thought there was a difference until sex ed class. They showed pictures of uncircumcised penises, and my first though was, "Whoa! What the hell is that?".

Anyways I was circumcised and don't really mind. If I have a son, I'll probably do the same for him. To me it just seemed like one of those steps you take when your child is born, sorta like vaccinations. (Note: I am not saying that circumcision is equivalent to or as important as childhood vaccinations.)

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

"with some (potentially biased) opinions dubbing it "genital mutilation" (which shocked me)."

Because it is - whether you agree with circumcision or not, it is genital mutilation.

Anyway: when you first start jacking it, your bell-end is incredibly sensitive. Once you get used to having your foreskin rolled back, it is less sensitive.

Never had a foreskin? Less sensitive bell-end.

The crux of the argument that this will inevitably descend into is that it's not the place of the parents to start chopping off body parts because they're religious or because they "just want him to look like his Dad".

Most people probably don't give a shit - but some people do, and they should be allowed the choice of what happens to their own body. (Obviously this is excluding medical reasons.) That people could be so willy-nilly (heh) about having body parts permanently removed with no say in the matter is beyond me.

Funnily enough, it's such a massive phenomenon in the States amongst non-Jews because it was originally intended to stop guys wanking.

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

You'd think people who'd been circumcised had never been taught how to wash.

Don't worry. I am telling you, as a circumcised non-virgin, that sex is still totally awesome. I remember worrying about the same thing, and trust me, it's fine. I've never felt let down (and neither have my partners... as far as I know) by it, besides, we all know it's about the yaw girth.

lacktheknack:

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

You can't miss something you never had, people who are uncut can.

That's what it says to me.

Freechoice:

JimB:

Freechoice:

But how would you know? Like you said, you have no basis for comparison.

The same way people know I'm missing something and should be outraged at my parents, I suppose.

It's not the same thing comparison though.

He's talking about sensation, though, for which he cannot make the comparison because he cannot say for certain which is better.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
I dont support circumcision.

I do, however, support a parents right to choose for their child. The solution in my eyes is properly educating people about circumcision, not banning it.

Proper education doesn't always work though. You can tell some people exactly how to not fuck something up and they will still do it. That's why it's still practiced, primarily by the religious (aka, the feeble-minded).

Besides, shouldn't it be your choice whether or not to be mutilated? And it is mutilation. It hurts like a motherfucker and the aftereffects are not well understood and can in some cases lead to death. Not often, but the fact that it can happen (as well as the risk of an ill-performed operation) is reason enough not to do it. The only benefit is the reduced HIV/AIDS thing, but that's not as prevalent in the west and is something one can learn about if one chooses.

There's no justification for circumcision. It's an old religious tradition that doesn't even try to fix what isn't broken.

Besides, why the fuck is a foreskin supposed to be a covenant with God?

It's actually rather simple. It's not the circumcision itself that is the covenant, but rather that God commanded to Abraham that he and all his male descendants should have a reminder in their flesh of the covenant in which God promised that Abraham would be fruitful and multiply, so what better place for the reminder than the thing that lets you be fruitful and multiply. Sources: being Jewish.

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

Something I don't remember, never have and never will short of ridiculous head traumas.

That's why I don't give a rip either way.

Matthew94:

lacktheknack:

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

You can't miss something you never had, people who are uncut can.

That's what it says to me.

That's a problem?

Binnsyboy:

Daystar Clarion:
Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

Agreed, though it's my understanding that most North American men are circumcised.

I was baffled, and queried my pen pal in the throes of sympathy pains about that when I found out.

I guess it'll just be a surprise for the American lasses when I go over there for university.

Well we can blame Kellogg for that (yeah, the cereal guy).

Dude was a friggin' fanatic.

Scared a lot of parents into mutilating their children.

lacktheknack:

Matthew94:

lacktheknack:

I'm circumcised, I have no comparison, I feel fine, I don't care. I note that the most vehemently anti-circumcision people are not, the people who care least are those who are. So that should say something.

You can't miss something you never had, people who are uncut can.

That's what it says to me.

That's a problem?

Actually it is.

It's been said over and over again. Parents should have no right to have a purely cosmetic surgery done on their children, the kid should be the one to choose.

lacktheknack:

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

Something I don't remember, never have and never will short of ridiculous head traumas.

That's why I don't give a rip either way.

That's fine that you don't care but it's no reason to have it continue and be done on the next generation.

My understanding is that it can reduce the transmission of some sexually transmitted diseases, its generally cleaner and can make the guy last longer during sex (never a bad thing). My opinion is that it shouldn't be done without good medical reason, though those crop up more often than you'd expect. Overall not a bad thing really, wont cause you any problems and shouldn't effect your sex life in a bad way.

I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

Reginald the Butler:
I understand where you're coming from. I'll just be something my wife and I discuss in the future.

On a side note, it is rather odd the most of the circumcised posters seem pretty "meh" about the procedure, while, what I assume are the uncircumcised posters, seem to be the ones who are up-in-arms.

Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

You know, I am going to go a little off topic here and go back in time.

A few years ago there was this giant resource project planned. Because there are a lot of kids with Diabetes type 1 (IDDM or Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus) they wanted to research why this occurs and how it can be pretended. This is usually a disease that occurs on children younger than 8 years old and it's a very serious disease. It's unknown what makes it happen so research on the subject is needed. However they weren't allowed to go through with the project because it's unethical. They would be doing research on newborn babies and young kids who can't consent.

Now this is research that could help millions of people every year including the ones included the ones that are researched on. If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

Daystar Clarion:
Rub you finger along the back of your hand, and then across your palm.

That's the difference in sensitivity we're talking about.

I am uncut, my brother has been circumcised. We have discussed this and it seems that there is no difference in sensitivity.

I seem to remember something about a research on men who had sex when they were uncut and then cut and found no difference. Can't bring sauce, unfortunately.

Yopaz:
If that isn't ethical then giving a newborn a cosmetic procedure which got no proven perks other than the old myth about hygiene is far from it.

Except when it's not purely cosmetic and is thought as a way to prevent the spreading of HIV.

Relish in Chaos:
But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

The studies that found no change used the circumcised penis as there model for comparison, and thus never tested the sensitivity of the foreskin itself or factored it into there equations. In addition to the sensation its movements produce, the foreskin contains tens of thousands of nerves, making it one of, if not the, most sensitive parts of the penis. You cannot possibly remove that many nerve ending and not lose sensitivity. It is not possible.

As for genital mutilation, it is a permanent surgical alteration to human genitals committed against infants who cannot possibly give their consent (their parents consent does not and should not count, the same way parents can't consent for a child to have sex and make it not rape). Circumcision is a more invasive procedure than many of the activities banned as genital mutilation when done to girls (you have no doubt seen the extreme cases which are more equivalent to castration. These are not the norm and the most common varieties of FGM remove fewer nerve endings and less tissue than circumcision). Any cut made to the genitals of an infant girl is a crime. Why shouldn't infant boys receive the same protection?

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

Relish in Chaos:
OK, so I know that this can be a somewhat private issue (not just for me, but for many people), but I want some discussion and insight into it anyway.

I'll start off by giving some background information that may or may not be particularly relevant to the rest of my story. My parents are Muslim, and I only became a fully-fledged Atheist about four or, at the latest, five years ago. But when I was about four, I was circumcised. I think I recall my mum telling me that it wasn't necessarily to do with "our" religion, but that I'd had some kind of infection and the best thing to do was to circumcise me so it wouldn't be an obstruction anymore. However, I'm not entirely sure how true that is, and she could've just been shovelling me lies to keep me quiet, on the basis that I wouldn't remember it when I grew up.

Now, some of my friends and websites that I've visited, detailing various medical studies, have said that circumcision can reduce the sensitivity of a man's penis and, therefore, reduce sexual pleasure, with some (potentially biased) opinions dubbing it "genital mutilation" (which shocked me). Obviously, this is a concern for someone like me, a 16-year-old heterosexual boy who's looking to have sex with a potential girlfriend some time in the future, and I'd hate for one or both of us to be short-changed unfairly like that.

But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

A few months ago I had to have a circumcision due to medical reasons. I honestly can't feel that much of a difference during sex or other related activities, if anything I would say it feels better (especially oral...). My girlfriend also says that she prefers it circumcised.

To everyone else going on about how much it hurts etc... it doesn't, the only times when it hurt were when the stitches would get caught on jeans or something. I took crappy cheap ASDA's own aspirin for two days after the operation but to be honest I don't think I even needed to do that.

Basically you have nothing to worry about.

Why did you have to start this thread OP? They always end terribly.

Daystar Clarion:
Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

I don't know who you are. If you want money I don't have any, but if you allow me into your bunker that will be the end of it. If you don't I will look for you. I will find you. And then I'll pound on the door until you let me in.

MASTACHIEFPWN:

Matthew94:

MASTACHIEFPWN:
I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

But in all reality, I don't think circumcision does anything, and I'd rather have my foreskin taken away while I was young and couldn't remember the feeling than fucking now.

Seriously- This is a trivial argument.

That logic is pretty flawed. You are happy having part of your body cut off because you don't want to take a few seconds in the shower to wash yourself?

I don't mind it at all. It's a useless body part, much like an appendix. (Though I've never heard of foreskin exploading...)

It doesn't make me any less human to have a bit of skin cut off, and if thoust thinks it does, well you can honestly go fuck yourself.

And on another topic of how useless this argument is- The makes sex less pleasurable/ more is completely based on oppenion.
The only problem I see with it is if a child somehow dies from the procudure, and well, life sucks anyway.

I think that's pretty horrible, you are ok with risking the life of a child for the reasons of "just because" and "it saves me time washing".

Daystar Clarion:
Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

In every single documented case I've found, it's *ALWAYS* because the procedure wasn't performed properly (at least when talking specifically about male circumcision). Improper training, cutting, utilities, etc. I have *yet* to find a documented case where everything was done by the book and a child died anyway. (And I would be very interested in reading otherwise)

We don't stop procedures based on the fact that things fuck up when you don't do them correctly. The reasoning behind that astounds me.

Slayer_2:
Warning, this is in detail and might gross out some people. Anyhow, I'm not circumcised, but as a I grew my foreskin didn't as much, so now it only covers half of my head, when flaccid. When erect, I look circumcised, so girls usually can't tell. The front part of my head is dried up and less sensitive, at first, when I was growing, it was uncomfortable to even wear clothes, but it hardened up and got less sensitive over time. Pretty crappy, so I imagine it's like that for the whole head of circumcised people. Pretty much, I'm happy I have most of my foreskin still.

See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Relish in Chaos:
SNIP

Basically all medical benefits can be achieved with washing. The statistic thrown around that it reduces cancer is true. But its only true because you cant get cancer on a bit of skin thats removed. To further that logic you would remove all excess skin(earlobes, most of the breast area and nipple, webs of fingers ect) to reduce cancer rates. Which is rediculous. If the arguements are so compelling for it let us get it when we are older anyway. Just dont perform cosmetic surgery on children. Its unneccessary and cant be reversed:

Two scenarios:

Have it and dont want it? - Fucked

Dont have it and want it - Always available.

Which one should be the default for CHILDREN?

Its fairly straight forward. Sure it doesnt matter THAT much. But choice is everything. Isnt it nice to let children decide if they want to -

A: clean it
B: Cut it off

With all of their body parts unneccessary or not?

I think its a sign of bad parenting to want to permenantly alter your childs appearance before they can decide for themselves. Its the same to me as tattooing my baby because not doing so "looks weird" or "its just what we do to babies". Sure its not a big deal REALLY. But its fucking weird and unneccessary and i wish people would stop unless its medically needed.

DevilWithaHalo:

Daystar Clarion:
Because children have actually died from a purely cosmetic procedure.

A little perspective.

In every single documented case I've found, it's *ALWAYS* because the procedure wasn't performed properly (at least when talking specifically about male circumcision). Improper training, cutting, utilities, etc. I have *yet* to find a documented case where everything was done by the book and a child died anyway. (And I would be very interested in reading otherwise)

We don't stop procedures based on the fact that things fuck up when you don't do them correctly. The reasoning behind that astounds me.

Why do a cosmetic surgery with no benefits (other than saving a minute in the shower) and put a child at risk of death?

You may say it is due to malpractice but the fact remains that pointless deaths do take place. If they weren't put through it (likely without consent) those children would still be alive today.

Relish in Chaos:
OK, so I know that this can be a somewhat private issue (not just for me, but for many people), but I want some discussion and insight into it anyway.

I'll start off by giving some background information that may or may not be particularly relevant to the rest of my story. My parents are Muslim, and I only became a fully-fledged Atheist about four or, at the latest, five years ago. But when I was about four, I was circumcised. I think I recall my mum telling me that it wasn't necessarily to do with "our" religion, but that I'd had some kind of infection and the best thing to do was to circumcise me so it wouldn't be an obstruction anymore. However, I'm not entirely sure how true that is, and she could've just been shovelling me lies to keep me quiet, on the basis that I wouldn't remember it when I grew up.

Now, some of my friends and websites that I've visited, detailing various medical studies, have said that circumcision can reduce the sensitivity of a man's penis and, therefore, reduce sexual pleasure, with some (potentially biased) opinions dubbing it "genital mutilation" (which shocked me). Obviously, this is a concern for someone like me, a 16-year-old heterosexual boy who's looking to have sex with a potential girlfriend some time in the future, and I'd hate for one or both of us to be short-changed unfairly like that.

But other websites and studies I've looked at have said that there's no change, and/or that it can actually expose/enhance certain areas of the penis, giving the same or more sexual pleasure, and some women like it. So basically, what I'm asking here is to have some kind of definitive, unbiased verdict on the whole thing, because I don't need yet another thing to stress about (as sad as that may sound) and I'd rather it not be a problem in the future.

We don't treat infections with circumcisions anymore. That is medievil/Civil War Medical logic. That's been outdated for centuries.

We treat infections with antibiotics, which is much cheaper, and less invasive. I know this from personal experience.

Now onto pleasure. There are very few scientific studies on circumcision, and most of the studies supporting circumcision try to bullshit their way into the medical community by using samples as low as 50, and restricting themselves to one tribe in Africa.

These studies have been thrown out.
You can have this link though:

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Personally, I say you were lied to.

anthony87:
See I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum. My foreskin doesn't go back over my head. Like....at all so I've been wondering to myself if I could give circumcision a looksee.

Even when you're erect?! Sounds painful. Maybe a case where circumcision could be a good idea. Just make sure you have soft underpants for afterwards, first few weeks will be awkward.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked