Register
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 267

Thread: circumcision

  1. #31

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by JUSTLUVIN View Post
    I beg to differ with your findings. Yes, maybe the ethics of using a multi million dollar machine may be in question but using a machine without permission will not affect the findings on the machine.

    You speak of the graduate student being biased, one cannot say that the established medical community is not already biased. One will study to find what one wants to find. Phrenology was something that used to be thought of as good science until someone figured out that the size of one's head did not dictate the amount of intelligence one has. Of course we know better these days but that used to be accepted. I can see a graduate student of the day using an expensive device of its time and asking questions, maybe without permission, but whether he or she used it or not still would not change the facts. So with that in mind, there will be arguments good and bad on both sides. Yet I tend to lean toward leaving the penis alone unless absolutely necessary.

    "Good science" keeps an open mind. It used to be that when science discovered something either by mistake or by intent, they studied the problem, not throw out the evidence because of how it was done.

    The western medical community ( and I won't put them all in the same basket) has been influenced by money and power so I don't see how we can look at established medical procedures without some suspect. There are many cases to point out to this matter. So we should question the practice of circumcision, look at all the facts, do studies that are not biased either by graduate students supposedly biased or the established medical community that has been biased for years by money, politics, and power.
    Good Science keeps an open mind to good science not bad science of those 100% sure of the answer before the study, inadequately trained in the technical/scientific aspects of their field and willing to engage in unethical behavior.
    JEM

  2. #32

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Isitfun View Post
    Ok truth be told I have NOT read all the comments. Just saying…
    I’m circumcised and had my son circumcised and don’t regret it…
    Now (truth be told) I always fantasied about being with a uncut dick.
    I agree with that. I am cut and don't regret it and my long time partner is uncut that is great too.
    JEM

  3. #33

    Re: circumcision

    There are countries where the men prefer their women circumcised, but that doesn't make it acceptable to cut parts off baby or young girls and mutilate their genitals.

    Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want their genitals mutilated as - it's *their* body.

  4. #34

    Re: circumcision

    Apparently I have mutilated genitals but I'm okay with. Personality, I'm glad it was done long before I remember it. Even as a child, I was glad mine looked the way it does.

    I've also sucked both cut and uncut and I definitely prefer cut. I can do either but I find it easier not to have to mess with the foreskin.

    I'm also noticing that a lot of females are big proponents against circumcision and it not even their body part. What in the world would a female know about carrying one around anyway?

  5. #35

    Re: circumcision

    Foreskin is just a fad for people that want to be trendy. What is unpopular now will return in the future as do all trends to be different. I see young guys walking around with their "hoodies" pulled over their faces. Ever notice it make their face look just like an uncut cock. It has that little face with a mouth looking back at you from the darkness. I lost my "hoodie" and have been happy with its function. Uncircumcised guys don't know what they are missing, just because they don't have anything missing! Seeing a cock with that little "poncho" on the end hides the prettiest part. If I have to choose between lips or skin rubbing over the head of my cock, guess what I will choose. Mark me as mushroomed and proud, smooth and pretty, when it gets hard it looks like a weapon. Your results may vary.

  6. #36

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by chtampa View Post
    Foreskin is just a fad for people that want to be trendy. What is unpopular now will return in the future as do all trends to be different. I see young guys walking around with their "hoodies" pulled over their faces. Ever notice it make their face look just like an uncut cock. It has that little face with a mouth looking back at you from the darkness. I lost my "hoodie" and have been happy with its function. Uncircumcised guys don't know what they are missing, just because they don't have anything missing! Seeing a cock with that little "poncho" on the end hides the prettiest part. If I have to choose between lips or skin rubbing over the head of my cock, guess what I will choose. Mark me as mushroomed and proud, smooth and pretty, when it gets hard it looks like a weapon. Your results may vary.
    Foreskin is not a trend. The majority of men throughout history are not cut. Up until the 1950s most men in the United States were not cut or mutilated.

    You do know that when an intact penis is hard or limp when the foreskin is pulled back, it looks exactly like a cut dick right?

    Circumcision or genital mutilation reduces sexual pleasure, destroys nerve endings that can never be regrown or reattached, it makes a penis dry and with a gross looking scar, and causes impotence or ED later in life.

    Actually it's men who are cut/mutilated who do not know what they are missing.

    Studies have shown that sex with a partner that's not cut are far more pleasurable for both women and men, and that men who are intact with a foreskin experience far more sexual pleasure-as do their partners, that cut men will never experience.

    Circumcision or male genital mutilation is not practiced by the majority of people, countries, and cultures around the world. The majority of men in the world are fully intact with a foreskin, and they and their sexual partners have no consequences.

    Meanwhile in the United States men and their female sex partners have to use sex lubes, STDs and HIV rates are very high, a lot of men who are cut suffer from premature ejaculation, and once men reach a certain age they have lots of difficulty getting it up or preforming sexually. None of this is coincidental as the United States once had the highest rate for circumcision or involuntary male genital mutilation ever.

    Circumcision also makes a man's penis smaller and less thick.

    Length and Circumference Circumcision removes some of the length and girth of the penis - its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is removed. A circumcised penis is truncated and thinner, and not as long than it would have been if left intact.

    Thankfully the rates are decreasing as people are realizing that circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation, and that if someone wants to get their dick or vagina mutilated they can wait until they're an adult and choose to do it to their own body.
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Sep 22, 2014 at 9:36 PM.

  7. #37

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by AGuyIKnow View Post
    Apparently I have mutilated genitals but I'm okay with. Personality, I'm glad it was done long before I remember it. Even as a child, I was glad mine looked the way it does.

    I've also sucked both cut and uncut and I definitely prefer cut. I can do either but I find it easier not to have to mess with the foreskin.

    I'm also noticing that a lot of females are big proponents against circumcision and it not even their body part. What in the world would a female know about carrying one around anyway?
    Both women and me are against male genital mutilation. I wouldn't say one is more against it than the other gender.

    For sucking dick and masturbatory sex a penis with a foreskin is far superior as there's a lot more you can do with it.

    Even for anal or vaginal sex, sexual partners of mine find it more pleasurable than they do with cut men, and the foreskin gliding over the head of your dick gives them sexual pleasure that a cut dick can't. If they want to feel what it's like with a cut dick I can just hold the skin back and thrust like that if they really want it. Cut men don't have the first option.

    I have also noticed that men who are cut tend to shoot their load very fast, and can't last that long at all.

    Other gay and bi guys I have met told me the same thing that in their experience men who are cut shoot their cum way too fast. Some of them have been with a lot more men than I ever will be like 100 or 1,000 men.

  8. #38

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by pole_smoker View Post
    Both women and me are against male genital mutilation. I wouldn't say one is more against it than the other gender.

    For sucking dick and masturbatory sex a penis with a foreskin is far superior as there's a lot more you can do with it.

    Even for anal or vaginal sex, sexual partners of mine find it more pleasurable than they do with cut men, and the foreskin gliding over the head of your dick gives them sexual pleasure that a cut dick can't. If they want to feel what it's like with a cut dick I can just hold the skin back and thrust like that if they really want it. Cut men don't have the first option.

    I have also noticed that men who are cut tend to shoot their load very fast, and can't last that long at all.

    Other gay and bi guys I have met told me the same thing that in their experience men who are cut shoot their cum way too fast. Some of them have been with a lot more men than I ever will be like 100 or 1,000 men.

    That seems to cover everything except acne and psoriasis.
    JEM

  9. #39

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by jem_is_bi View Post

    That seems to cover everything except acne and psoriasis.
    It astonishes me that in talking about sex, pretty much nobody mentions that most adult men in the United States today have been deprived of the most pleasurable, sensitive part of their penises. Without a foreskin and its sensory feedback, a man has difficulty controlling the timing of his orgasm. Also, because he’s missing the very organ that serves a gliding and lubricating function—and because he has a scar where his foreskin used to be—his penis is calloused and dry, when compared to that of an intact man; this creates a friction during intercourse and compromises the pleasure of both sexual partners.


    Don’t believe me? Then explain the uniquely American proliferation of lubricants and masturbation creams, the existence of which many Europeans—most of whom are intact—find strange.


    Understandingcircumserum the history of American circumcision helps to explain all of this. In fact, when doctors began promoting circumcision in the Victorian era (late 1800s), the purpose was precisely to reduce pleasure and cause pain–to dissuade men from the “immoral” and “unhygienic” practice of masturbation. Among those who pushed the circumcision solution to masturbation were American physicians Abraham Jacobi (the organizer of the American Pediatric Society) and J.J. Moses (then-head of the New York State Medical Society and president of the Association of American Physicians).


    Just as Jewish physician and philosopher Maimonides had recognized 800 years earlier that circumcision is genital mutilation that reduces sexual pleasure, these fathers of American medicalized circumcision believed that its physiological and psychological effects–aversive pain memory and loss of sensory tissue–would help to diminish sexual gratification, whether self-sought or through genital contact with a partner.


    Should we be surprised, then, with findings such as those from Denmark, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011, showing that circumcised men have greater difficulty reaching orgasm, and that female partners of circumcised men are less likely to feel sexually satisfied?


    What is astonishing is that American doctors persist in a practice designed to ruin the natural pleasures of sex, and then deny that it in fact does so. Meanwhile, the vast majority of adult American men are living with scars instead of foreskins. Half of the couple is missing a most basic, sensual part of his anatomy, and we wonder why Americans find sex less than fulfilling.


    Severing the penile nerve during circumcision or male genital mutilation is no doubt part of some men’s problem, but they didn’t mention that the skin that covers an unprotected (no foreskin there) glans (head) gets keratinized. This is sort of like a callous. Since the skin is mucosal tissue, like the inside of a woman’s labia, it’s supposed to be thin, moist, and kept covered. Take the covering away, and 2 things happen. The head is exposed to drying and constant nerve stimulus (nerves need periods of rest or they start to wear out) and the skin responds by growing protective layers and increasing the keratin (what makes hair, nails and some skin tough). Hence, the nerves then don’t receive signals they want as well. So they’re tired, and ‘hard of hearing’.


    It’s time that we recognize that it doesn’t matter if circumcision is more good than bad in X % of the population’s eyes, or if a parent believes a dr. who is standing to make profit by cutting their son’s parts off AND by selling that part (look up fibroblasts). What matters is that a man deserves to know his healthy body parts, weigh the information according to his own values, and only give it up if HE wants to.


    “Within minutes, three feet of veins, arteries and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves and more than 20,000 nerve endings are destroyed; so are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin. Finally, what nature intended as an internal organ is irrevocably externalized.” – Circumcision In America – Debra S. Ollivier


    Is it any wonder why so many women in the United States prefer masturbating with their fingers, getting oral sex, or a vibrator to vaginal sex? Circumcision affects sexual function, it’s time Americans catch up with the rest of the world and recognize that the male foreskin is a normal healthy functioning sexual organ not something that should be removed and that a man's penis is meant to be intact just like a woman's vagina.


    If anyone tries to tell you that circumcision is safe, healthy and beneficial, they are mistaken, lying, or perhaps even professionals making money from continuing the procedure of involuntary male genital mutilation.

  10. #40

    Re: circumcision

    I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

    know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

    didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

    my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........

  11. #41

    Re: circumcision

    I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

    I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

    My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.

  12. #42

    Re: circumcision

    I don't think it's a good idea to include circumcision in with "religious freedom".

    There are other religious traditions, such as the mutilation of the clitoris in females that occur under some Islamic sects. There are a few cannibalistic tribes that still exist in the world, and said cannibalism is a part of their religious beliefs. There are a great many other examples of religious freedoms that inflict harm. To support one of them in the name of religious freedom is to support all of them in the name of religious freedom. Do you really want to go that far?

    This isn't about antisemitism (there are other cultures/religions outside of a Judaic base that also use circumcision). This is about the secular, law-given right to not be subject to bodily harm against one's will. The religious freedoms of one individual should not supersede the freedoms of another. Children are individuals, they are not property. I believe that is an important factor in the changing of the laws - for a very long time children were considered very nearly property. They are acquiring ever-more protections and freedoms over the last few decades.

  13. #43

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Tatuaje View Post
    I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

    I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

    My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.
    There are many Jews both in North America, South America, Europe, and even Israel who do not practice circumcision or male genital mutilation yet they're still Jewish and choose to practice that religion.

    Eventually circumcision or male genital mutilation will either become illegal or fall out of practice worldwide as the rates are decreasing at a fast rate.

    Mutilating babies and young boys genitals is utterly unacceptable, whatever the purported reason. Would Jewish and Islamic people defend female genital mutilation because somewhere there's a religion and/or culture that demands it?

    http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/...-anti-semitic/

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Goldman
    Here are some relevant facts.
    1. Jewish circumcision is not mandatory; it is a choice. Some Jews in North America, South America, Europe, and Israel do not circumcise their sons.
    2. Circumcision is a topic of debate in the Jewish community and has been questionedhistorically and in various Jewish publications in recent years.
    3. In actual practice, most Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons.
    4. According to the “Encyclopedia Judaica,” “any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not.”
    5. According to Jewish values, the human body must not be altered or marked, and causing pain to any living creature is prohibited. Some Jews believe that circumcision is not ethical. Jewish values place ethical behavior above doctrine.

  14. #44

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by cbb83 View Post
    I don't think it's a good idea to include circumcision in with "religious freedom".

    There are other religious traditions, such as the mutilation of the clitoris in females that occur under some Islamic sects. There are a few cannibalistic tribes that still exist in the world, and said cannibalism is a part of their religious beliefs. There are a great many other examples of religious freedoms that inflict harm. To support one of them in the name of religious freedom is to support all of them in the name of religious freedom. Do you really want to go that far?

    This isn't about antisemitism (there are other cultures/religions outside of a Judaic base that also use circumcision). This is about the secular, law-given right to not be subject to bodily harm against one's will. The religious freedoms of one individual should not supersede the freedoms of another. Children are individuals, they are not property. I believe that is an important factor in the changing of the laws - for a very long time children were considered very nearly property. They are acquiring ever-more protections and freedoms over the last few decades.
    Exactly, it's child abuse, and involuntary genital mutilation as the infant or young boy does not have a choice.

  15. #45

    Re: circumcision

    Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

    Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?

  16. #46

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Tatuaje View Post
    Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

    Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?
    Actually, male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation (AKA female circumcision), are done for the exact same reasons either excuses of hygene, religion, or cultural reason and both mutilate the genitals and are involuntary.

    1. They are both practised on non-consenting children,
    2. They both involve cutting, mutilating, and damaging the child's genitals,
    3. they both take place because of the irrational dictates of ancient superstitions,
    4. they are both often/always dangerous or damaging both in the short term and in the long term
    5. they both reduce sexual functioning and pleasure
    6. The effects of both are either irreversible or painfully reversible
    7. They ensure that intense and prolonged pain are the first experiences a child has of his/her own genitals

    More babies die of complications from circumcision than from vaccines. All circumcision deaths are avoidable, by simply not circumcising babies.

  17. #47

    Re: circumcision

    Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".

  18. #48

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by chtampa View Post
    Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".
    It's a myth that the foreskin is a "tip" it's a actual skin, and akin to a woman's clitoral hood or labia.

    Once the foreskin is removed the penis is mutilated and becomes less sensitive, and smaller in length and width than it would have been had it remained intact with a foreskin.

    People like to pretend that it's about preventing STDs/HIV, hygiene, and all sorts of other things. When there's such a thing a taking a shower daily and using condoms and practicing safer sex.

    FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut.

    The majority of pro-circumcision studies happen to come from America where the vast majority of doctors are already circumcised. It does seem a bit of a coincidence really, as though they are seeking affirmation that their parents made the right choice in mutilating their genitals.

    Here's what it's really about:

    1. It's a cash cow.
    2. It's inescapable physical hazing. Hazing is designed to strengthen a person's ties to a group. This is an issue of conformity and the group's perpetuation of itself at the expense of its members' well-being.
    3. It comes from the long tradition of pretending that denying physical urges (sexual pleasure in this case) is a path to righteousness. The primitive desire for control also refers to point 2. The foreskin has a huge amount of nerve endings and protects the most sensitive part of the penis from abrasion and burning.
    The religious candy coating doesn't explain why so many American Christians, and Jews many of whom are not particularly devout, mutilate their boys. That can be explained, though, with the conformity and bodily denial points.America has a long history of insane butchery, such as that of Dr. Kellogg (of cereal fame) who sewed little boys' penises with silver sutures to prevent erection, burned little girls' clitorises with carbolic acid, and performed FGM. This is what is at the heart of "circumcision."

    In the US they make 200 to 300 dollars for a 15 minute mutilation.

    Then they flog the removed body parts on to cosmetic companies- no kidding. Oprah got into a pickle over this. Would you allow doctors to slice up baby girls, harvest their body parts and flog them on to cosmetic companies??

    I hope not.

    http://www.ecouterre.com/oprah-draws-criticism-for-endorsing-face-cream-made-from-foreskins/
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/anti-circumcision-activists-to-protest-oprah-s-canadian-appearances-1.1321531
    Mutilating a child's genitals (male or female) should always be illegal.

    Circumcision is a barbaric and out-dated practice, with zero medical benefit. Time to ban it outright.
    Besides, if you believe you were created by God, why would you want to cut off a bit of what God gave you? How is that in anyway a "covenant" with God? Sounds more like you've been tricked by the Devil, there.

    It's quite simple really: a child, whether male or female, should not be forced to have their genitals mutilated. They'll still be free to get circumcised when they're mature adults. Nothing anti-Semitic here, "racist", (nor "Islamophobic", before you all start shouting about it).

    Practicing your religion of choice is fine.
    Mutilating children's genitals is not.
    See, it's easy if you just give it some thought.
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Sep 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM.

  19. #49

    Re: circumcision

    "FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut."

    Someone actually linking circumcision to HIV. Maybe cut guys are just more popular. I wonder if the public is ready for this announcement?

  20. #50

    Re: circumcision

    I'm trying to figure out why you consider circumcision not equatable to clitoral mutilation. I mean I suppose on a technical level you could argue that it's equivalent to removing the clitoral hood, but that still results in a dried-out desensitized clitoris that will likely have issues - much like a penis, especially given that clitoral and penile tissues are basically identical. Also, the cannibalism bit was meant to be compared to religious freedoms that are questionable, not to circumcision.

    Also - what science? There is no science that supports circumcision. There are just some poorly-drawn inferences from skewed statistical analyses that suggest you could avoid a few issues - which you avoid by NOT HAVING THE PART THEY AFFECT! That's hardly approving science. That's like saying you could never suffer from acne if we removed all of your skin.

    Also, a vaccine doesn't surgically remove parts of your body - theymake you generate antibodies to achieve immunities. Although I am aware that some religions/cultures dislike vaccinations - and personally I feel that's horrifically unwise as well - it's not on the same level as genital mutilation in terms of doing harm (unless you happen to live in an area stricken with Polio or some such).

  21. #51

    Re: circumcision

    I assume you would require a person reach the age of 18 (legal age for consent) regardless of parental decisions/consent for the following:
    1) pierced ears (or any other piercing)
    2) dental extraction or even braces (sorry, nature intended for you to have jacked teeth)
    3) corrective surgery of any kind
    4) participation in sports (especially football) that could result in injury or even death

    I appreciate the debate regarding circumcision. I do believe it is a parental choice, but see your position.

  22. #52

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by chtampa View Post
    "FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut."

    Someone actually linking circumcision to HIV. Maybe cut guys are just more popular. I wonder if the public is ready for this announcement?
    Actually, men who are not cut are more popular. Both among women and men as we are considered exotic at least in the United States.

    I just don't like the gay men who get really obsessive over foreskin or want a man only because he's not cut.

    Circumcision or genital mutilation does nothing to actually prevent HIV or STDs the way the people who are for it claim it does based on some faulty studies done in various African countries.

    The guys I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are part of the generation that was pretty much all cut, and they were not all around or sexually active in the decades before HIV/AIDS was known about. They're both bottoms/passive, tops/active, and some are mainly into oral sex. But all are cut, and they became HIV+ or got infected with other STDs from unprotected sex.

  23. #53

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by lanotme View Post
    I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

    know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

    didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

    my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........
    I can attest to your feelings when it happened to you. I defintely remember mine but can;t remember the exact feeling I had when I had my skin since it was done as a baby. But for 2 years I suffered in baths. It took a while for my glans to toughen up before I was able to deal with being cut. Now that I am growing mine back, there is a marked difference in feeling and look

  24. #54

    Re: circumcision

    FGM is a strawman... but it's a strawman propped up by those who support circumcision or male genital mutilation. Their argument is, effectively, that male humans should have no rights to a complete body and intact genitals because worse things are done by some people to females. Well, worse things ARE done by some people to females... and males; but that doesn't make it right to mutilate an infant or young boy's genitals.


    Amusingly enough in all this is that Judaism is perhaps one of the BEST religions out there when it comes to reshaping itself to suit the modern world. It has shown time and again that if a religious practice actually harms people, it's the practice that has to stop. And contrary to what some people claim, there are a growing number of Jews, and even Muslims who do not support baby butchery - and more power to them.

    The foreskin adds to sexual pleasure experienced by adult males, so therefore it's not dissimilar to FGM.

    It's a form of brainwashing - once circumcised every boy and man will be confronted with the evidence of their


    'Jewish/Muslim/Whatever Identity' every single time they go to the bathroom, get washed, get undressed, have sex.


    Every single time.
    'Your penis isn't yours, it belongs to us'.
    Unbelievable.

    In reality, it has nothing at all to do with any religion, let alone Judaism or Islam. It's about a child's right not to be butchered and have his/her genitals mutilated without consent.

    At the end of the day what this boils down to is do we allow adults to cut off part of a child, and mutilate his or her genitals when the child isn't old enough to consent?

    Being religious might be the reason that these adults want to mutilate the genitals of a child but that doesn't mean that it should be allowed.

    What if there was a hypothetical religion that removed the lower eyelids of its children at 8 days old because it would help them to "see their God" and make a special covenant? Would that be allowed and accepted?

    In the US, at least, the official line is that freedom of religion is a shield, not a sword. It defends you, personally, being able to make choices, but doesn't grant you the power to make choices for others. Now, religion keeps trying to sharpen the sword, and push the line in that direction. And parental rights have always been a thorny issue - where do parental rights end and personal rights begin for children? Which brings us to that thorny question, here: why should a male child have his genitals mutilated merely because he was born to a Jew or Muslim that's religious? Why should religious freedom for the parent result in reduced human rights for the child?
    I think these are especially important questions to keep in mind when you're talking about doing something permanent, with no scientific benefit, which can be conducted at any point in the future should the male decide he wants his genitals mutilated later in life.


    I don't have any problems with religions as long as they don't harm people and don't try to force others to join them.

    The practice of circumcision (both male and female) violates my first concern and as such I believe it has no place in a modern society. If people want to be circumcised and mutilate their genitals they can choose to get it done at 18 if they want.


    On another note, has anyone questioned how bizarre it is that some people believe god wants them to cut off part of their son's penis and mutilate his genitals to be closer to him?!

  25. #55

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Tatuaje View Post
    Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

    Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?
    Many circumcised women say the exact same thing that it's grounded in medicine, science, and culture. The fact you're not aware of it is partly because you don't want to be and partly because the white western press doesn't find this a comfortable thing to report. FGM is still supported by a majority of woman in many countries, and the 2008 Interagency statement on FGM (WHO, UNICEF among the authors) acknowledged that a major problem in stopping FGM is the pride of cut women.

    In Mayalsia they circumcise or mutilate the genitals of infant girls in hospitals much like they do to infant boys in the Western world, and both claim it's for medicine, science, hygiene, cultural reasons, or other BS that people use to advocate male genital mutilation.

    I recommend you also read the writing of Dr Fuambai Ahmadu, an anthropologist who got herself mutilated as an adult (without anaesthetic) and sees it as culturally important and sexually positive. Here's one recent example, http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and...218-2em65.html

  26. #56

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by lanotme View Post
    I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

    know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

    didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

    my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........
    I've never been cut or mutilated.

    I did find this quote though.

    You do lose an enormous amount of sensitivity. It has no effect on ejaculation, or whether you can get an erection or not. Because you lose so much sensation you have to work much harder to get the same sensation which affects sex completely.Performance artist Peet Pienaar,
    who filmed and exhibited his own circumcision in 2000

  27. #57

    Re: circumcision

    "Peet Pienaar" has explained why cut men can last longer, and perhaps a reason that all the women I have been with, prefer cut guys. Never heard a woman say "I want an uncut guy". Could it be that the interest in uncut rather than cut is only important for alternate lifestyles. I am a grow'er rather than a show'er, so I look uncut until I get hard, and then nobody cares. Been with both kinds of guys and they each have had fun with what they have. Maybe I am lucky to have it both ways. A poncho for everyday wear and a missile when it matters. This is really a non-issue.

  28. #58

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by chtampa View Post
    "Peet Pienaar" has explained why cut men can last longer, and perhaps a reason that all the women I have been with, prefer cut guys. Never heard a woman say "I want an uncut guy". Could it be that the interest in uncut rather than cut is only important for alternate lifestyles. I am a grow'er rather than a show'er, so I look uncut until I get hard, and then nobody cares. Been with both kinds of guys and they each have had fun with what they have. Maybe I am lucky to have it both ways. A poncho for everyday wear and a missile when it matters. This is really a non-issue.
    How many women have you actually asked? You'd be surprised if you asked women this in the United States who are in their 20s or 30s, or you asked any woman in Europe, Asia, Australia, or Central/South America and they would all reply that they prefer a man that's not cut and that a penis is supposed to be intact with a foreskin and unmutilated.

    If you're cut and like you are that's not the same as being fully intact with a foreskin that has all the nerve endings that are not destroyed, stripped away, or "cut off" literally by genital mutilation. You don't have a foreskin that's designed to pleasure a man or woman's ass, vagina, or mouths during sex. It also makes masturbation a lot more fun and pleasurable.


    Of course that performance artist is going to claim he "lasts longer" he's only doing that because his genitals are now mutilated, and I doubt that's the case.


    In reality men who are not cut last far longer than men who are cut. That's been my experience when I've been with men who pretty much all were cut, and the experiences of other bi and gay men I know who are not cut who have been with a lot more cut men than I have been with, and with women I know who have been with cut men.


    Then there's this study:


    THE NEW ZEALAND
    MEDICAL JOURNAL
    Vol 116 No 1181 ISSN 1175 8716 shield
    Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm


    While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O'Hara and O'Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: `They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).' 4


    Presence of the movable foreskin makes a difference in foreplay, being more arousing to the female.4 Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if the male partner had a foreskin.4 The impact of male circumcision on vaginal dryness during coitus required further investigation.


    We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men.


    Participants completed a 35-item sexual awareness survey. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men c 2 (df = 1, n = 20) = 5.0, p <0.05.5


    Women who preferred a circumcised male sexual partner averaged 27.3 years of age (SD = 8.2), while those whose stated preference was for a genitally intact partner had a mean age of 36.4 years (SD = 13.7). Thus, the role of the male foreskin in preventing loss of vaginal lubrication during intercourse may become more discernible with increasing age among women. We reported:


    `During intercourse, the skin of an intact penis slides up and down the shaft, stimulating the glans and the nerves of the inner and outer foreskin. On the outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin with more skin remaining inside the vagina than is the case with the circumcised penis. This `valve' mechanism is thought to retain the natural lubrication provided by the female because the bunched up skin acts to block the lubrication escaping from the vagina, which results in dryness.'5

    Men need to realize that their 'bent' penis, their 'leaning' penis, their hairy shaft, scars, discoloration on the head or shaft of the penis, the odd skin bridges on their dicks, etc. are ALL because of circumcision or male genital mutilation.

    Also, if circumcision is so great - why aren't more men who are intact with a foreskin choosing to be circumcised? I've yet to hear an argument that makes me want to chop part of my cock off. Why are so many men who were cut and mutilated restoring what little foreskin they have left as JustLuvin did?
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Sep 24, 2014 at 7:20 PM.

  29. #59

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Tatuaje View Post
    I assume you would require a person reach the age of 18 (legal age for consent) regardless of parental decisions/consent for the following:
    1) pierced ears (or any other piercing)
    2) dental extraction or even braces (sorry, nature intended for you to have jacked teeth)
    3) corrective surgery of any kind
    4) participation in sports (especially football) that could result in injury or even death

    I appreciate the debate regarding circumcision. I do believe it is a parental choice, but see your position.
    1.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


    2.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


    3.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


    4.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.
    Last edited by pole_smoker; Sep 24, 2014 at 7:23 PM.

  30. #60

    Re: circumcision

    Quote Originally Posted by Tatuaje View Post
    I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

    I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

    My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.
    How would being against circumcision or calling it what it is involuntary genital mutilation, be antisemitic? Anti-Judaic? Or Anti-Islam/Islamophobic?

    If banning female circumcision is not racist against those cultures which favour it, why would banning male circumcision be anti-Semitic?

    When a baby is born it's not jewish, catholic, or islamic. So how does to not circumcise it hurt it's religion?

    It does however hurt it's body and mutilate the genitals involuntarily. In an unneccesary operation, doctors are not allowed by their oath.

    You realize that in traditional African and even Arabic cultures, female genital mutiliation has exactly as much cultural and religious meaning for them as male genital mutilation does to you, right? According to you, their's isn't OK, but yours is.

    Ancient superstitions are no excuse for child abuse and genital mutilation.

    Mutilation is mutilation and playing the anti-Semitism card (although Arabs and Palestinians are also Semites) is irrational in cases of child protection. Presumably by the same logic it’s racist to advocate a ban on FGM in the many countries of sub-Saharan and North East Africa where it is culturally practiced.

    Circumcision is an idiotic, barbaric act.

    Reading out what's said on some "ancient" scrolls about it, is hardly a defense.

    It seems like most commentators totally lose their marbles when it comes to issues of antisemitism. Also, circumcision isn't just exclusive to Jewish faiths.
    Of course it's abusive and wrong. Identical to female mutilation. If the child wants to make in informed choice, post age 18 as a legal adult, to be circumcised then go for it.

    Imagine the outrage if you tattooed your child's ears or other body parts at 8 days.

    Israel’s chief rabbinate says oral suction at circumcision is preferred
    The practice of 'metzitzah b'peh,' in which blood is sucked orally from the circumcision wound, is under scrutiny in
    Germany, due to a complaint filed against a Berlin rabbi for allegedly committing bodily harm during a brit milah.
    Link: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/...erred-1.517349

    According to the NYmag
    Since 2000, thirteen babies in New York City have been infected with herpes during the metzitzah b'peh process. Two of them died, and two suffered brain damage.
    But hey, all's fair when we're talking about a soul covenant with a bronze-age deity. But since when has logic been the bedrock of any religion?

    I mean, in a sane world, is this acceptable?? Shall we bring back all forms of 3000 year old medieval religious practices???


    Circumcision is not a strictly Jewish practice. It is also Muslim. In North America, it was widespread and standard across the population until recent decades.
    It is also an unnecessary and very painful and permanent procedure on a newborn baby and in a day and age when we know this to be the fact, when we also know that children's rights and protection from trauma is one of the most important things we can do as societies for a better future. It's not that many of these abuses have been done out of maliciousness. It's just adult societies have put their own customs and beliefs and traditions and modern trends and wants and needs above those of the rights of children simply because we really have not recognized them as anything but extensions of the parents. They are their own little human beings.

    You make it seem as if ALL Jews still circumcise their boys, and it's not the case. You make it seem as if without circumcision one cannot be a Jewish male. And that anyone against it is against it because they hate Jews, rather than because they have a profound commitment to children's rights and stopping so much in human societies and history that has ignored and trampled on children's rights. This goes across every ethnic group, every society, every religion.

    Don't use anti-semitism as a strawman to shield the pathetic nature of your argument. Circumcision of children is mutilation without consent and if it is so important to the Jewish faith then adult Jews can go get themselves circumcised after makng an informed decision. Bleeding-heart religious and cultural sensitivity should not blind us to what is right and wrong.

    Judaism is all about evolution. I know Jews who do not practice Kosher and who eat bacon, who have tattoos, and who did not mutilate the genitals of their sons or have their genitals mutilated.

    In the Jewish faith animals are no longer sacrificed, and the practice has died out. Eventually this will happen with circumcision or male genital mutilation both among Jews and non-Jews.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top