NationStates Jolt Archive

*ok, I was arguing with someone about this the other day; but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this forum in my time, apologies if it's already been done*


It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.


My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.

It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway
Not actually true: there are a few cases of it being practised over here.

It should be banned, yes.

Is it true, that circumcision is pretty common in the US? I'm not sure where I heard that, but I was quite surpised.

*ok, I was arguing with someone about this the other day; but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this forum in my time, apologies if it's already been done*


It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.


My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.
Moot point. Its no ones' decision but the parents. It won't be outlawed.

:cool:

Am I the only circumcised non-religious person left on Earth who really doesn't give a crap?

It was a flap of skin! Jesus! My mom and dad were nice enough to bring me into the world, feed me, clothe me, not strangle me after that time I melted crayons with my mom's new clothes iron... um...where was I? Oh, yes...

My point is that whether it was for religious reasons or health reasons(There is still a fairly lively debate about that. Back in the seventies, circumcision was favored, I think) my parents thought it was for the best.

I'm not about to go apeshit over their decision, right or wrong over a measly flap of skin.

I think the same thing should be true for governments. It's NOT mutilation like clitoris removal is. The government has no right to make that decision for parents.

What amazes me is that most of the people who are most militantly opposed to circumcision are among the most pro-choice. Interesting that people are willing to let parents decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy but go apeshit at the idea of them choosing whether to remove a foreskin. *eyeballs spin around*

IIRC it used to be that US boys were routinly(sp?) circumcised when they were born. Spread from stopping masturbation but then health issues cemented it.

There are definite studies that circumcision GREATLY reduces the risk of catching and transmitting AIDS and other HIV infections (check back articles of the BMJ etc if you want to find the studies). It is so good in fact that the trials had to be stopped because the docs knew the treatment was far superior.

@OP: I assume you mean infant circumcision not for medical reasons should be banned (just wanted to check). Even some of those could be postponed though. Some definitely should in the ases of hypospadias etc. where circumcision before correcting the condition severly hampers restoration operations.

Am I the only circumcised non-religious person left on Earth who really doesn't give a crap?

It was a flap of skin! Jesus! My mom and dad were nice enough to bring me into the world, feed me, clothe me, not strangle me after that time I melted crayons with my mom's new clothes iron... um...where was I? Oh, yes...

My point is that whether it was for religious reasons or health reasons(There is still a fairly lively debate about that. Back in the seventies, circumcision was favored, I think) my parents thought it was for the best.

I'm not about to go apeshit over their decision, right or wrong over a measly flap of skin.

I think the same thing should be true for governments. It's NOT mutilation like clitoris removal is. The government has no right to make that decision for parents.

What amazes me is that most of the people who are most militantly opposed to circumcision are among the most pro-choice. Interesting that people are willing to let parents decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy but go apeshit at the idea of them choosing whether to remove a foreskin. *eyeballs spin around*


I agree the government shouldn't make it illegal that's just dumb. What about those people who circumcision is part of their faith what then?

lauren

It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society.

Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights.
Well, since you have excluded virtually every type of opposing argument from consideration, all I can say is meh! :p

Circumcision is supposed to be healthier, just as long as the doctor does not take too much! :p

When I was pregnant I put a lot of thought into it, until I found out I was going to be having girls. I think I decided that if I had a boy that I would make sure his stuff looked like his Dad's stuff to avoid any awkwardness.

I don't think it should be outlawed, but people should have more facts when they have to decide. I asked my doctor about it, and he said "well, it costs $30"
I had to go look up the health stuff, and the emotional stuff on my own, and most people won't bother with all that. ;)

Oops, didn't put an opinion in my post.

I don't agree that infant circumcision should be banned but I would have doctors discourage it in Western countries because it isn't necessary for good hygiene. It does reduce the rik of catching STDs but then condoms do a much better job of that anyway. I don't agree with kids being inducted into religions before they can understand them so obviously I disagree with religious reasons but that's for a different discussion.)

Some medical conditions, ie. not "because it's cleaner", do require it and therefore banning it would be ridiculous.

Edit: added sentence about STDs.

When I was pregnant I put a lot of thought into it, until I found out I was going to be having girls.
Let me know when you feel they're ready to date; I've got some grandsons who might be interested. :D

All my children seem to be able to have is boys; I have five boys and two ( count 'em, TWO ) grand daughters! Sigh. I just love little girls.

Am I the only circumcised non-religious person left on Earth who really doesn't give a crap?

It was a flap of skin! Jesus! My mom and dad were nice enough to bring me into the world, feed me, clothe me, not strangle me after that time I melted crayons with my mom's new clothes iron... um...where was I? Oh, yes...

My point is that whether it was for religious reasons or health reasons(There is still a fairly lively debate about that. Back in the seventies, circumcision was favored, I think) my parents thought it was for the best.

I'm not about to go apeshit over their decision, right or wrong over a measly flap of skin.

I think the same thing should be true for governments. It's NOT mutilation like clitoris removal is. The government has no right to make that decision for parents.

What amazes me is that most of the people who are most militantly opposed to circumcision are among the most pro-choice. Interesting that people are willing to let parents decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy but go apeshit at the idea of them choosing whether to remove a foreskin. *eyeballs spin around*


If your parents had decided to remove any other part of your body they would have been prosecuted. Think about that.

Well, since you have excluded virtually every type of opposing argument from consideration, all I can say is meh! :p


That's just my opinion, hence the qualification. People are free to argue otherwise.

If your parents had decided to remove any other part of your body they would have been prosecuted. Think about that.

Like extra fingers and toes? Want a bet?

And deny my son, through legislation, the ability to enter into the Covenant of Abraham? No and fuck you for asking.

And deny my son, through legislation, the ability to enter into the Covenant of Abraham? No and fuck you for asking.
You know what? I actually agree with you on this one. :p

And deny my son, through legislation, the ability to enter into the Covenant of Abraham? No and fuck you for asking.

YAY! :D

IIRC it used to be that US boys were routinly(sp?) circumcised when they were born. Spread from stopping masturbation but then health issues cemented it.

There are definite studies that circumcision GREATLY reduces the risk of catching and transmitting AIDS and other HIV infections (check back articles of the BMJ etc if you want to find the studies). It is so good in fact that the trials had to be stopped because the docs knew the treatment was far superior.

@OP: I assume you mean infant circumcision not for medical reasons should be banned (just wanted to check). Even some of those could be postponed though. Some definitely should in the ases of hypospadias etc. where circumcision before correcting the condition severly hampers restoration operations.


Yes, I meant routine circumcison; there are cases where it is necessary but these are rare. In any case, there are non-surgical treatments for common problems which should be tried first.

I've seen the new stuff about HIV infection, but, still, that should only affect the case for adults who can make an informed decision about it.

Circumcision is supposed to be healthier, just as long as the doctor does not take too much! :p
LOL!

There's this Texan whose wife has a 17 lb baby boy. He's so proud he goes to the local watering hole and buys a round for everyone!

A few weeks later, he comes back and sits in the corner sobbing and drinking himself into oblivion. One of the guys comes over and asks him what's wrong.

"Well, you know when I was in here a couple weeks ago and bought a round for everyone 'cause my wife had a 17 lb baby boy?"

"Yes, I remember," sez the friend.

"Well, now he only weighs SEVEN pounds!"

"OMG! What happened???"

"They circumcised him!"


Yes, my friends ... Texans are mostly foreskin! :D

Like extra fingers and toes? Want a bet?

clap, clap - I didn't mean abnormalities.

clap, clap - I didn't mean abnormalities.

Isn't normal/abnormal a decision for an informed adult to make and not an infant's parents?

Let me ask you something: Are you pro-choice?

And deny my son, through legislation, the ability to enter into the Covenant of Abraham? No and fuck you for asking.

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.

Better still; why not do it with no anesthetic?

Let me know when you feel they're ready to date; I've got some grandsons who might be interested. :D

All my children seem to be able to have is boys; I have five boys and two ( count 'em, TWO ) grand daughters! Sigh. I just love little girls.
yeah, you may be waiting for a while, my 4 year old claims she isn't dating until she is finished with medical school (or at least a resident)

and my 2 year old thinks boys are "yucky" because they have penises

no it shouldnt be banned.

but it should be discouraged and never done automatically.

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.

Better still; why not do it with no anesthetic?
That was the practice thoughout most of Africa and the Middle East for centuries ... still is, in some places. And they wait until the boy is 12! :p

Isn't normal/abnormal a decision for an informed adult to make and not an infant's parents?

Let me ask you something: Are you pro-choice?



Sorry for having to spell this out. But a foreskin is not an abnormality, it's a functioning body part.

As for your second question? WTF?

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.


Good point. If we allow male circumsision because of religious reasons, we'd also have to allow female circumsision for the same reasons.

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.

Separation of Church and State.

Keep your State out of my Church.

I think banning this proceedure is just a veiled attack against tradtional values and religion.

I find it hard to believe that in any one's world everything is going so well that this issue has risen to the top of their agenda.

Please give us a break and aim your guns at a real problem.

Thank you for your time.:rolleyes:

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.
it's not abuse, it's a medical procedure. (kinda like all the pro-choicers go on about abortion not being murder but a "medical procedure")

calling his religion "bullshit" is uncalled for though, I kinda take offense because my religion was born from his.

Better still; why not do it with no anesthetic?
why not? according to some people "babies can't feel pain"

Good point. If we allow male circumsision because of religious reasons, we'd also have to allow female circumsision for the same reasons.
Nope. Female circumcsion serves no purpose other than to defuse female sexuality. A good argument can be made, however, that male circumcision serves a useful medical purpose, particularly in undeveloped countries.

Good point. If we allow male circumsision because of religious reasons, we'd also have to allow female circumsision for the same reasons.

No religion allows female circumcision.

it's not abuse
You didn't answer my QUESTION! :p

I have never been so amused, and at the same time horrified in my reading...what parents decide to do for their children should be the choice of the parent, not some lunatic with nothing else to do. Whether it is cultural or religious, or aesthetics for that matter, let the parents decide, not some legislative body or special interest group. Should we, following the lines of this argument, disallow the piercing of a child's ears? Is that not mutilation as well? Careful of the slope you are treading on, it's quite slippery. If parents want to remove excess skin around their child's penis, so be it - I am quite sure though that someone will find a shrink to say that men who are circumcised are more likely to kill the neighbor's kitty.

IIRC it used to be that US boys were routinly(sp?) circumcised when they were born. Spread from stopping masturbation but then health issues cemented it.

There are definite studies that circumcision GREATLY reduces the risk of catching and transmitting AIDS and other HIV infections (check back articles of the BMJ etc if you want to find the studies). It is so good in fact that the trials had to be stopped because the docs knew the treatment was far superior.

@OP: I assume you mean infant circumcision not for medical reasons should be banned (just wanted to check). Even some of those could be postponed though. Some definitely should in the ases of hypospadias etc. where circumcision before correcting the condition severly hampers restoration operations.

Circumcision was supposed to stop masturbation? Well, that accomplished its goal spectacularly, didn't it? :rolleyes:

And the alleged health benefits have proven to be greatly exaggerated.

In fact, the most common argument I hear in favor of circumcision these days is "so that other kids won't make fun of him." Which has to be the stupidest possible argument I can think of for an unnecessary surgery.

But banning it outright? That's going a bit far. And it may prove to be unnecessary too, since many insurance providers are starting to classify it as "unnecessary surgery" and are refusing to pay for it.

Sorry for having to spell this out. But a foreskin is not an abnormality, it's a functioning body part.

As for your second question? WTF?

I'm just wondering. Because if you are Pro-choice I wonder how you manage to justify to yourself that parents have the right to decide if their unborn child lives or dies, but they are not fit to decide if their newborn should have a foreskin or not.

I have never been so amused, and at the same time horrified in my reading...what parents decide to do for their children should be the choice of the parent, not some lunatic with nothing else to do. Whether it is cultural or religious, or aesthetics for that matter, let the parents decide, not some legislative body or special interest group. Should we, following the lines of this argument, disallow the piercing of a child's ears? Is that not mutilation as well? Careful of the slope you are treading on, it's quite slippery. If parents want to remove excess skin around their child's penis, so be it - I am quite sure though that someone will find a shrink to say that men who are circumcised are more likely to kill the neighbor's kitty.
Good point! What about a child who has an inflammed appendix? The parents can't decide to have it removed? Hmm.

Feel free to abuse your child if you want. Because that's what it is, old time religious bullshit or not.

I suppose you would grow up traumatized by being circumcised? You will forever look down and feel that a part of you is missing that you have been scarred for life? I doubt that anyone is going to care at all that they were circumcised at birth.

Perhaps you should keep your religous opinions to yourself if you're going to be a jerk. :mad:

I'm just wondering. Because if you are Pro-choice I wonder how you manage to justify to yourself that parents have the right to decide if their unborn child lives or dies, but they are not fit to decide if their newborn should have a foreskin or not.
LOL! Now you're trying to be actually, like ... rational! Tsk! :p

I suppose you would grow up traumatized by being circumcised? You will forever look down and feel that a part of you is missing that you have been scarred for life? I doubt that anyone is going to care at all that they were circumcised at birth.
Well, there's also a pretty vaild reason from a sexual standpoint as well, since removal of the foreskin helps build "endurance" for that longer-lasting lay later in life! :D

LOL! Now you're trying to be actually, like ... rational! Tsk! :p

:eek: Oops! Sorry. Must've slipped through my filter. :)

Nope. Female circumcsion serves no purpose other than to defuse female sexuality. A good argument can be made, however, that male circumcision serves a useful medical purpose, particularly in undeveloped countries.

As long as there is no medical need for it (just as in developed countries), it is simply a unnecessary medical operation without consent of the child. As soon as the child is old enough to make an informed decision about it, it can decide for itself.

No religion allows female circumcision.

No? I thought circumcisions in Africa are mostly based on religion.

You didn't answer my QUESTION! :p
did too

yeah, you may be waiting for a while, my 4 year old claims she isn't dating until she is finished with medical school (or at least a resident)

and my 2 year old thinks boys are "yucky" because they have penises


or are you talking about another question??

:eek: Oops! Sorry. Must've slipped through my filter. :)
Heh! Just watch it in future, k? :p

As long as there is no medical need for it (just as in developed countries), it is simply a unnecessary medical operation without consent of the child. As soon as the child is old enough to make an informed decision about it, it can decide for itself.
The longer you wait to have the procedure performed, the more painful it is and the longer it takes to heal. :p

And as I said above, it helps with male sexual endurace later in life.

did too

or are you talking about another question??
ROFOMAO! Nope. That was the one. :D

@Dishonourable scum: I didn't actually say that it worked did I?

It is true that it reduces sensation, however, and this is part of the stopping masturbation thing I'd guess. The prepuce has many more nerve ending than the glans and so heightens pleasure. It also keeps the glans moist and covers it so the glans is more sensitive. It is also a vital part of the mechainics of sex because the penis slides in a sheith of it's own skin, reducing the need fo artificial lubrication. Foreskin is definitely not "excess" skin.

Edit:
@ Eutrusca: ENdurance can be increased without reducing sensitivity.

As long as there is no medical need for it (just as in developed countries), it is simply a unnecessary medical operation without consent of the child. As soon as the child is old enough to make an informed decision about it, it can decide for itself.

Does not the word PARENT mean anything anymore? Does a parent have to wait on everything until a child is old enough to decide for himself? People should take care of their kids, do what they believe is best for them, no to have the child rule the parent, if you do that then you end up being that parent whose child won't stop screaming in the supermarket.

No? I thought circumcisions in Africa are mostly based on religion.
Not at all. It's perfomed on girls to defuse their sexuality so that they're "less tempted to be sexually active or adulterous" later in life. :p

No? I thought circumcisions in Africa are mostly based on religion.

Not really ... it's based on male dominance. I may be wrong, but I do not think any religion allows the grotesque mutilation they do on women in some African nations.

Some religions do allow for removal of the clitoral hood as a parental option, but that's it.

@Dishonourable scum: I didn't actually say that it worked did I?

It is true that it reduces sensation, however, and this is part of the stopping masturbation thing I'd guess. The prepuce has many more nerve ending than the glans and so heightens pleasure. It also keeps the glans moist and covers it so the glans is more sensitive. It is also a vital part of the mechainics of sex because the penis slides in a sheith of it's own skin, reducing the need fo artificial lubrication. Foreskin is definitely not "excess" skin.

Edit:
@ Eutrusca: ENdurance can be increased without reducing sensitivity.
It reduces the possibility of "premature ejaculation," something that most women find rather ... distressing! :p

@ Utacia: Kiddy tantrums and giving them what they want is totally different to removing a fully functioning part of their body.

Edit: @ Eutrusca: I have also read evidence that premature ejaculation is also more common in circumcised men (Meant to be due to trauma from the circumcision). This isn 't very well substantiated and you can totally ignore it. Just wanted to show there are other views.

What amazes me is that most of the people who are most militantly opposed to circumcision are among the most pro-choice. Interesting that people are willing to let parents decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy but go apeshit at the idea of them choosing whether to remove a foreskin. *eyeballs spin around*
Yes, and I believe that everyone has the right to deceide what goes on with their reproductive organs. This includes boys.
Before it leaves the womb, it's not a person, when it does, it is...

Not really ... it's based on male dominance. I may be wrong, but I do not think any religion allows the grotesque mutilation they do on women in some African nations.

Some religions do allow for removal of the clitoral hood as a parental option, but that's it.
You are correct. OMG! :eek:

in the US currently, just about 50% of newborn baby boys are circumcized.

It is true that it reduces sensation

Then I, for one, am glad to be rid of my banana slug and am proud for my little conquistador! If my penis were any more sensitive, just putting on pants would cause eruption!

I say "BAH" on your "more sensitive" claim.

Not really ... it's based on male dominance. I may be wrong, but I do not think any religion allows the grotesque mutilation they do on women in some African nations.

Some religions do allow for removal of the clitoral hood as a parental option, but that's it.

I heard that it's practised in some parts in Africa, because "the Koran says so". It doesn't seem like the Koran says anything of that kind, but that would still make it a religious practise, even if it might be based on false information.

But I can't back that up, sorry.

You are correct. OMG! :eek:

I have my moments. :D

Separation of Church and State.

Keep your State out of my Church.

under normal conditions, that's fine, as long as you keep your church out of my state. however when the issue is a question of basic human rights, the state has the ability, and duty, to interfer. for example, if i created a religion where the basis was murdering people every 2 hours, i would not expect the government to simply ignore that because "it's my religion and you have to stay out of it"

It should be banned, yes.

Is it true, that circumcision is pretty common in the US? I'm not sure where I heard that, but I was quite surpised.

Yes, it is extremely common in America. Every guy I know is circumcised.

I think that is is wrong, but I don't think it should be banned. I would not do it to my children.

There is a great Penn and Teller : Bullshit TV (showtime and DVD) show on this.

Yes, and I believe that everyone has the right to deceide what goes on with their reproductive organs. This includes boys.
Before it leaves the womb, it's not a person, when it does, it is...

No problem then. We just have to figure out how to perform circumcisions in-utero. That would satisfy you? :D

Good point! What about a child who has an inflammed appendix? The parents can't decide to have it removed? Hmm.
actually my daughter had her appendix removed and there wasn't anything wrong with it at all, but we (me, my husband, and her doctor) decided that it would be better to take it out while they were in there anyway.

so, what do you all have to say about that? It's not just skin, it's an entire organ.

I have my moments. :D
Hehehe! So I see! Amazing! :D

I heard that it's practised in some parts in Africa, because "the Koran says so". It doesn't seem like the Koran says anything of that kind, but that would still make it a religious practise, even if it might be based on false information.

Well some people blow up abortion clinics or fly plains into buildings because they think some book told them to. If what you do in the name of your religion isn't actually a part of your religion, then it isn't a religious practice, it's ignorance.

No problem then. We just have to figure out how to perform circumcisions in-utero. That would satisfy you? :D
LOL! Now THERE's the LG we've all come to know and love ( in a strictly non-sexual way, of course! ) :D

Well, there's also a pretty vaild reason from a sexual standpoint as well, since removal of the foreskin helps build "endurance" for that longer-lasting lay later in life! :D

Though the foreskin adds a ridge to the penis that increases the stimulation for your partner. And, from my experience it does make a difference :).

Though for simply practical reasons my sons will not be circumcised. My (former) officemate had a son die due to a staph infection following his circumcision. It kind of drove home the risks/benefits issue for me.

Then I, for one, am glad to be rid of my banana slug and am proud for my little conquistador! If my penis were any more sensitive, just putting on pants would cause eruption!


...could be fun...

Well some people blow up abortion clinics or fly plains into buildings because they think some book told them to. If what you do in the name of your religion isn't actually a part of your religion, then it isn't a religious practice, it's ignorance.
Wow! K ... you're on a roll! GO for it, boy! :D

Well some people blow up abortion clinics or fly plains into buildings because they think some book told them to. If what you do in the name of your religion isn't actually a part of your religion, then it isn't a religious practice, it's ignorance.

If the motives are based on religious beliefs, then it is a religious practise.

I think banning this proceedure is just a veiled attack against tradtional values and religion.

I find it hard to believe that in any one's world everything is going so well that this issue has risen to the top of their agenda.

Please give us a break and aim your guns at a real problem.

Thank you for your time.:rolleyes:


Thanks for your time too. Most interesting.

This is a f*cking message board - hardly somewhere where I necessarily post 'issues at the top of my agenda'.

It reduces the possibility of "premature ejaculation," something that most women find rather ... distressing! :p
Circumcision doesn't really reduce premature ejaculation. The guys I've dated who are cut went faster than the guys who weren't. The amount of sexual experience a guy has is more likely to determine how long he lasts...

Also, I've never found premature ejaculation distressing, the guy still has 10 fingers and a tongue that work perfectly fine.

@ Dakini: An inflamed appendix can kill the child if not removed. Healthy foreskin will never do that. Unless demons possess it of course :P

Though for simply practical reasons my sons will not be circumcised. My (former) officemate had a son die due to a staph infection following his circumcision. It kind of drove home the risks/benefits issue for me.
Ah! That's the very first valid reason I've seen in favor of not having it done. Kudos!

under normal conditions, that's fine, as long as you keep your church out of my state.

I have absolutely zero problem with that. Anyone around here will know me to be truthful in that statement.

however when the issue is a question of basic human rights, the state has the ability, and duty, to interfer. for example, if i created a religion where the basis was murdering people every 2 hours, i would not expect the government to simply ignore that because "it's my religion and you have to stay out of it"

Different kettle of fish there. *snip snip* of the skin doesn't deny life or liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Though if you do form this religion, how can I join? ;)

Wow! K ... you're on a roll! GO for it, boy! :D

Lol ... well I had my Wheaties this morning. That, and this is something I do actually feel passionately about and do actually (dun dun dunnnn) take seriously.

Circumcision doesn't really reduce premature ejaculation. The guys I've dated who are cut went faster than the guys who weren't. The amount of sexual experience a guy has is more likely to determine how long he lasts...

Also, I've never found premature ejaculation distressing, the guy still has 10 fingers and a tongue that work perfectly fine.
OMG! ROFLMAO!

My extensive experience has led me to just the opposite conclusion. Not only do most women greatly appreciate the ability to last longer, but they much prefer that ALL body parts play a vital role! :D

Lol ... well I had my Wheaties this morning.
Wheaties, eh? Does that put lead in yer pencil then? :D

I suppose you would grow up traumatized by being circumcised? You will forever look down and feel that a part of you is missing that you have been scarred for life? I doubt that anyone is going to care at all that they were circumcised at birth.

Perhaps you should keep your religous opinions to yourself if you're going to be a jerk. :mad:


Religious opinions? Oh dear.

No problem then. We just have to figure out how to perform circumcisions in-utero. That would satisfy you? :D
Why not chop the things arms off in utero while we're at it? I mean, if you're going to mutilate them, why not go all the way.


Aside from that, given how many botched circumcisions happen when infants are circumcised, I get the feeling that operating on something smaller and more inaccessible would only increase the rate.

Did anyone see that show on TLC "Born a Boy, Raised a Girl"? The doctors took a little too much off during a circumcision...

actually my daughter had her appendix removed and there wasn't anything wrong with it at all

Is her GI tract less sensitive for it?

If your parents had decided to remove any other part of your body they would have been prosecuted. Think about that.

What about the appendix? huh?

Is her GI tract less sensitive for it?
nope, actually she doesn't seem to notice at all. ;) She doesn't really remember having an appendix, so she doesn't really miss it.

Aside from that, given how many botched circumcisions happen when infants are circumcised, I get the feeling that operating on something smaller and more inaccessible would only increase the rate.

How many is that? What are the statistics?

How does it compare to, say, botched appendectamies(sp)? or botched surgeries in general?

I'm just wondering. Because if you are Pro-choice I wonder how you manage to justify to yourself that parents have the right to decide if their unborn child lives or dies, but they are not fit to decide if their newborn should have a foreskin or not.


Ok, change the subject if you can't justify your position.


For the record, I don't have an opinion on abortion because whatever opinion you have; it's always wrong.

Yeah, nevermind that unless you regularly keep the area under your foreskin clean, you'll get this stinky buildup (smegma) that could lead to an infection (such as thrush). Personally, I wouldn't want a fungal infection on my penis. O_O

I think circumcision is great, one less thing you have to worry about. Plus your penis doesn't look like an armadillo.

@Dishonourable scum: I didn't actually say that it worked did I?

It is true that it reduces sensation, however, and this is part of the stopping masturbation thing I'd guess. The prepuce has many more nerve ending than the glans and so heightens pleasure. It also keeps the glans moist and covers it so the glans is more sensitive. It is also a vital part of the mechainics of sex because the penis slides in a sheith of it's own skin, reducing the need fo artificial lubrication. Foreskin is definitely not "excess" skin.

Edit:
@ Eutrusca: ENdurance can be increased without reducing sensitivity.

Yep too true. I knew someone who went to a surgeon to have foreskin replanted, because he was against circumcision and hated his parents for what he considered the equavilant of rape by mutilating a part of his body without his consent. Is sad IMO.
Yeah I really read up about Circumcision out of personal interest. There is no advantage to circumcision, the cirmumcision helps against STD is a twisted truth because most people in Africa are not circumcised and they have HIV, so that means nothing.
As for endurance :rolleyes: that is wish thinking it doesn't depend on how sensitive you are when you squirt.
The only disadvantage of not being circumcised is that for about 5 seconds, yes 5 seconds while in the shower you pull back the foreskin so they everything is hygenic. Yep 5 seconds of extra shower time is the horror.
Also interestingly enough, circumcision is reducing rapidly in the US by numbers annually, in 2004 only 63% of the male children were circumcised compared to the 91.3% of 1970 that is a lot. By current estimate by 2025 the circumcision amount will be around 10%. So no need to get worked up about making it illegal it is already getting out of trend. (My source is a book I got from a library, shy 2 months ago, called America and Circumcision or something like that).
Is true though, circumcision was introduced in the US to lessen maturbation, because circumcised men feel less pleasure due to the sensitive skin being rubbed rough.

OMG! ROFLMAO!

My extensive experience has led me to just the opposite conclusion. Not only do most women greatly appreciate the ability to last longer, but they much prefer that ALL body parts play a vital role! :D
Well, like I said, the guys I've encountered who weren't cut lasted longer. Most likely because they were more experienced, but nonetheless, being uncut does not mean you'll blow your load right away nor does being cut mean you'll last forever.

Furthermore, I'm young, the guys I'm going to be doing things with are young, if they go early then that's not a problem, they can spend 20 minutes doing other things and then be ready to go again. Also, it's not often I reach orgasm through intercourse anyways, most women don't.

Then I, for one, am glad to be rid of my banana slug and am proud for my little conquistador! If my penis were any more sensitive, just putting on pants would cause eruption!

I say "BAH" on your "more sensitive" claim.

of course the other purpose of the foreskin is to protect the penis from undo "sensations" when your not engaging in sexual activity. so putting on your pants would actually be less likely to cause "eruption" then when your circumcised

Personally, I wouldn't want a fungal infection on my penis. O_O

It certainly wouldn't get you invited to parties.

Also interestingly enough, circumcision is reducing rapidly in the US by numbers annually, in 2004 only 63% of the male children were circumcised compared to the 91.3% of 1970 that is a lot. By current estimate by 2025 the circumcision amount will be around 10%. So no need to get worked up about making it illegal it is already getting out of trend. (My source is a book I got from a library, shy 2 months ago, called America and Circumcision or something like that).
Is true though, circumcision was introduced in the US to lessen maturbation, because circumcised men feel less pleasure due to the sensitive skin being rubbed rough.Hey, so the U.S. is catching up to the rest of the world, I see.

@Automagfreek: Cleaning under the foreskin would take less than 30 secs extra time in the shower. People generally wash their genitals anyway so how would this make much difference?

Yeah, nevermind that unless you regularly keep the area under your foreskin clean, you'll get this stinky buildup (smegma) that could lead to an infection (such as thrush). Personally, I wouldn't want a fungal infection on my penis. O_O

I think circumcision is great, one less thing you have to worry about. Plus your penis doesn't look like an armadillo.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!! OMG! OMG! ROFL!

As to "smegma," it can also lead to rather serious female problems. Bad all the way 'round, eh? :(

of course the other purpose of the foreskin is to protect the penis from undo "sensations" when your not engaging in sexual activity. so putting on your pants would actually be less likely to cause "eruption" then when your circumcised

Meh ...

See ... the problem with this whole thing is that we have no basis for comparison. A circumsized male cannot know what it's like to be uncircumsized and vice versa.

You could take an uncircumsized, sexually active adult male and snip him, but the procedure is radically different for adults than for infants. It would affect an adult in ways that it would never affect an infant.

There is absolutely no way to scientifically determine which is better for the male, hence, we can only look to the preferrential or religious and, thus, NO BANNING!

Keep your laws off my body and out of my religion.

@Automagfreek: Cleaning under the foreskin would take less than 30 secs extra time in the shower. People generally wash their genitals anyway so how would this make much difference?
Huh! You would be surprised. There are a lot of seriously grubby people out there! :(

How many is that? What are the statistics?

How does it compare to, say, botched appendectamies(sp)? or botched surgeries in general?
I don't know how many, but since I'm only planning on having 2 kids, I'm not taking any unnecessary risks by making them undergo unnecessary surgery. If they want to get rid of some foreskin, then they can do that when they're 18 and can legally make decisions for themselves.

I had a circumcision because I was dripping on my shoes as a nipper. I can't say I miss it particularly, and I can wear suede shoes without them smelling funny now as well.

Meh ...

Keep your laws off my body and out of my religion.


It's not your body, it's your childs. You didn't have a choice so why should he eh?

There is absolutely no way to scientifically determine which is better for the male, hence, we can only look to the preferrential or religious and, thus, NO BANNING!

Keep your laws off my body and out of my religion.
Also, I wasn't arguing for making it illegal, I'm just saying I wouldn't do it to my own kids. If other people want to mutilate their son's penises, while I think it's unfair to the kid, there's nothing I can do about it.

I don't know how many, but since I'm only planning on having 2 kids, I'm not taking any unnecessary risks by making them undergo unnecessary surgery. If they want to get rid of some foreskin, then they can do that when they're 18 and can legally make decisions for themselves.

Exactly. People should really have more respect for their children.

And they should definitely keep their religions out of their children's pants.

Why not chop the things arms off in utero while we're at it? I mean, if you're going to mutilate them, why not go all the way.


I was trying to illustrate the point that regardless of whether a child is born or unborn, parents have the right(hell, the expectation!) to make certain decisions for their children. Especially during times when a child can't make such a decision for itself. One of these is religion. Everybody has the right to choose their religion. Child included. But if a religion requires that a child be circumcised, then what happens to that child if he or she dies before his/her decision is made? What happens to the faithful parent who believes their child has been denied their religious birthright?

Let's leave religion out of it for a moment. What about the controversy raging on the sexual/physical health of circumcision as opposed to not? What gives governments the right to choose over parents?

Especially since the penis is around for...what? 18 years before the child is a legal adult? That's a long time to put off a health decision.

Is true though, circumcision was introduced in the US to lessen maturbation, because circumcised men feel less pleasure due to the sensitive skin being rubbed rough.
I want to see your source for this. Circumcision in the US, as far as I know, was primarily for:

1. Religious reasons

2. Cleanliness

3. Tradition

@Automagfreek: Cleaning under the foreskin would take less than 30 secs extra time in the shower. People generally wash their genitals anyway so how would this make much difference?

And what about the conditions that can develop from having foreskin?

Frenulum breve is where the frenulum is insufficiently long to allow the foreskin to fully retract, which may lead to discomfort during intercourse. The frenulum may also tear during intercourse. I don't suppose this could feel too nice.....

Phimosis is a condition when the foreskin of an adult cannot be retracted properly.

A condition called paraphimosis may occur if a tight foreskin becomes trapped behind the glans and swells as a restrictive ring. This can cut off the blood supply ischaemia to the glans penis and is a medical emergency.

Personally, I would rather not have to worry at all. I'm not aware of any medical conditions that may occur with a circumcised penis....

Exactly. People should really have more respect for their children.

And they should definitely keep their religions out of their children's pants.
You're out of touch with reality on this one. Sorry, but no cigar.

Exactly. People should really have more respect for their children.

And they should definitely keep their religions out of their children's pants.

So I should let my son eat pork and never make him clean his room?

You don't have kids ... do you.

This is so amusing. You can collapse a child's skull and suck out his brains if you want, but once you get him outside the birth canal DON'T YOU TOUCH HIS FORESKIN.

Also, I wasn't arguing for making it illegal, I'm just saying I wouldn't do it to my own kids. If other people want to mutilate their son's penises, while I think it's unfair to the kid, there's nothing I can do about it.

It's not "mutilation" and without my son's brit milah, he would not be entered into the Covenant of Abraham and would not be considered Jewish.

You would deny my son entrance into the Covenant and entrance into the Temple just for a useless bit of skin?

I know you're not arguing to make it illegal, that's really more for the crowd in general.

If they want to get rid of some foreskin, then they can do that when they're 18 and can legally make decisions for themselves.
Increasing the liklihood of infection and other problems, not to mention the pain.

I'm glad I had my two sons circumcised. :p

So I should let my son eat pork and never make him clean his room?

as far as i'm concerned, there is a slight difference between making your child clean his room, and cutting off a part of his penis.

You don't have kids ... do you.
My thought precisely.

I was trying to illustrate the point that regardless of whether a child is born or unborn, parents have the right(hell, the expectation!) to make certain decisions for their children. Especially during times when a child can't make such a decision for itself. One of these is religion. Everybody has the right to choose their religion. Child included. But if a religion requires that a child be circumcised, then what happens to that child if he or she dies before his/her decision is made? What happens to the faithful parent who believes their child has been denied their religious birthright?

Let's leave religion out of it for a moment. What about the controversy raging on the sexual/physical health of circumcision as opposed to not? What gives governments the right to choose over parents?

Especially since the penis is around for...what? 18 years before the child is a legal adult? That's a long time to put off a health decision.
lol
The only reasonable reason to get circumcised is religion. The only health issue associated with being uncut is that sometimes the foreskin doesn't retract easily, but that can even be treated non-surgically using topical steroids that increase the skin's elasticity. If that doesn't work, then it would make sense to get the kid's foreskin cut, but that's a medical decision.
At infancy, it's just unnecessary surgery.

as far as i'm concerned, there is a slight difference between making your child clean his room, and cutting off a part of his penis.

But forcing him to clean his room is "disrespecting" him. Heaven forbid I disrespect my son! The pork comment was more on the lines of the keeping my religion out of my kid's business.

Newsflash: You're not there to be your kid's "friend". Dr. Phil is wrong and an asshole - just ask his kids.

as far as i'm concerned, there is a slight difference between making your child clean his room, and cutting off a part of his penis.

Yes. The snip is usually quicker and less painful. :p

So I should let my son eat pork and never make him clean his room?

You don't have kids ... do you.

Huh? Maybe you should ask him if he wants pork? If he wants to, why not? And what does roomcleaning have to with that? :confused:

Yes. The snip is usually quicker and less painful. :p

rofl!

This "debate" has taken on some of the aspects of political and religious "debates" on here, i.e. it's gotten out of hand.

I'm outta here. :p

Increasing the liklihood of infection and other problems, not to mention the pain.

I'm glad I had my two sons circumcised. :p
What increased risk of infection and pain? The foreskin is there to protect the head of the penis and I haven't seen any stats indicating a higher rate of infection or pain among men who are uncut.

lol
The only reasonable reason to get circumcised is religion. The only health issue associated with being uncut is that sometimes the foreskin doesn't retract easily, but that can even be treated non-surgically using topical steroids that increase the skin's elasticity. If that doesn't work, then it would make sense to get the kid's foreskin cut, but that's a medical decision.
At infancy, it's just unnecessary surgery.

Not everybody agrees with that. Hell, not ever DOCTOR agrees. A parent's job is to make decisions like this for their child.

Huh? Maybe you should ask him if he wants pork?

Ummmm ... no. I'd no more ask him that than I would ask him if he wants to sacrifice a virgin to Baal.

If he wants to, why not?

Because *I* am the parent, not him.

But forcing him to clean his room is "disrespecting" him. Heaven forbid I disrespect my son! The pork comment was more on the lines of the keeping my religion out of my kid's business.

Newsflash: You're not there to be your kid's "friend". Dr. Phil is wrong and an asshole - just ask his kids.
ROFLMFAO!!! [ begins to develop a decided liking for K! ] :eek:

It's not "mutilation" and without my son's brit milah, he would not be entered into the Covenant of Abraham and would not be considered Jewish.

You would deny my son entrance into the Covenant and entrance into the Temple just for a useless bit of skin?

I know you're not arguing to make it illegal, that's really more for the crowd in general.


ok, so you're prejudiced about this whole matter but those in the know do not ever refer to the foreskin as 'a useless bit of skin'

Huh? Maybe you should ask him if he wants pork? If he wants to, why not? And what does roomcleaning have to with that? :confused:
K was right ... you don't have children! :p

It's not "mutilation" and without my son's brit milah, he would not be entered into the Covenant of Abraham and would not be considered Jewish.

You would deny my son entrance into the Covenant and entrance into the Temple just for a useless bit of skin?

I know you're not arguing to make it illegal, that's really more for the crowd in general.
I'm agnostic. My kids aren't likely going to end up in any covenant with any god because children raised by non-religious parents are more likely to be non-religious than they are to be religious. And if my hypothetical son does want to become muslim or jewish (I can't think of any other religions that require such mutiliation) then he can do so at 18 when he's an adult.

Increasing the liklihood of infection and other problems, not to mention the pain.

I'm glad I had my two sons circumcised. :p

It's a crapshoot either way. Either your kid will going to be pissed that you removed his foreskin, or he'll be pissed that you didn't....

...and that all the guys at school started making fun of him in the shower, naming him 'Armadillo Dick' and ruining his self esteem.....

Heh.

Ummmm ... no. I'd no more ask him that than I would ask him if he wants to sacrifice a virgin to Baal.



Because *I* am the parent, not him.

Heh.

"Timmy? Would you like to damn your soul today?"

"Yes, daddy." :D

Circumcision is no longer recommended by the american medical association, the association of pediatrics, the world health organization...this list goes and on. Rates in Europe are lower than 10%, Australia is like 5% or lower...yet they don't seem to have waves of penis infection problems. It is only in the USA, where doctors don't understand how to care for an intact penis where you hear people complaining of these problems.

You could save your daughter from TONS of infections (look it up in any medical book, women get more UTIs and other infections than men) by cutting of the clitoral hood...but do we practice this? NO! of course not!! So why in the world would you cut off the end of your son's penis? It's the blind following the blind on this one, robotically following the traditions of those before them, and it is very apparent in the USA, where our major medical associations are yelling STOP but we do it anyway.

ROFLMFAO!!! [ begins to develop a decided liking for K! ] :eek:
yeah me too:eek: it looks like we have similar parenting styles (you know that you should actually be a parent)

ROFLMFAO!!! [ begins to develop a decided liking for K! ] :eek:

Well when it comes to bein' a dad, I be the dad!

You'll stop liking me again when you remember what a leftist liberal hippie I am. ;)

But forcing him to clean his room is "disrespecting" him. Heaven forbid I disrespect my son! The pork comment was more on the lines of the keeping my religion out of my kid's business.

Newsflash: You're not there to be your kid's "friend". Dr. Phil is wrong and an asshole - just ask his kids.
Forcing a kid to clean their room is teaching them discipline and essential life skills.
Cutting off their foreskin is preforming unnecessary and mostly irreversible surgery.

I'm agnostic. My kids aren't likely going to end up in any covenant with any god because children raised by non-religious parents are more likely to be non-religious than they are to be religious. And if my hypothetical son does want to become muslim or jewish (I can't think of any other religions that require such mutiliation) then he can do so at 18 when he's an adult.

Aye ... and that's your choice. I respect it. Now respect mine and stop calling it "mutilation".

It's a crapshoot either way. Either your kid will going to be pissed that you removed his foreskin, or he'll be pissed that you didn't....

...and that all the guys at school started making fun of him in the shower, naming him 'Armadillo Dick' and ruining his self esteem.....

Heh.
It depends what country you live in. The U.S. is the only country without a jewish or muslim majority where circumcision is the norm. Even in Canada the majority of the male population is uncut.

Well when it comes to bein' a dad, I be the dad!

You'll stop liking me again when you remember what a leftist liberal hippie I am. ;)

I think that regardless of whether you believe that circumcision is a good idea or a bad idea I think that any PARENT would respect that it's the PARENT'S choice and not the government's.

Hell, I had a really hard time deciding. I had to spend a lot of my banked up 'sanity' on that decision! :(

Aye ... and that's your choice. I respect it. Now respect mine and stop calling it "mutilation".
As far as I'm concerned that's what it is. I repsect your choice, I mean, the religious argument is the only one I find reasonable.

Cutting off their foreskin is preforming unnecessary and mostly irreversible surgery.

I'm going to call bullshit on this.

Linky (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm)


What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?

The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that males predominate among infants with urinary tract infections (whereas females predominate later in life) and that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. Studies in US Army hospitals involving more than 200,000 infant boys confirmed greater than a tenfold increase in urinary tract infections in uncircumcised male infants compared to those who had been circumcised.

What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the foreskin and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.

What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases?

There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men.

What might this connection between circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases mean?

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.


What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis?

The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is 1 in 600 in the US. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis. Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the penis.

Why anyone would WANT these kind of worries in their life is beyond me.

Aye ... and that's your choice. I respect it. Now respect mine and stop calling it "mutilation".
As far as I'm concerned that's what it is. I repsect your choice, I mean, the religious argument is the only one I find reasonable.

yeah me too:eek: it looks like we have similar parenting styles (you know that you should actually be a parent)
I know. We all speak out of our experience, whether it be extensive or nonexistent. :)

I didn't bother reading all 8 pages, but if I am wrong or if someone already said this, then please ignore :)

To my understanding the foreskin plays a major role in terms of pleasure. Having it removed can seriously detract, if not eliminate, any real pleasure for the man. I know some guys probably don't have any problem with their sex-drive with/or without their foreskin, but some guys suffer without it.

I am in the latter crowd, I am sad to say. Of course, my circumcision was done at the hands of a doctor who did it the old fashioned way with a knife (and did a real hackjob I think). Sex can be described as 'meh' as far as I am concerned. It's nice, but nothing to go and build a monument about. I was kind of dissapointed when I lost my virginity, my first thought was "This is what all the guys talk about?". Of course, looking back on it, I seriously suspect I am not feeling the 'whole experience'. The more I read up on the faults of circumcision, the more convinced I am that sex would have been a great deal more amazing to me had I not had that doctor go at me with a knife.

I would never have any child of mine circumcised, it serves no purpose and inflicts physical damage on the child that can last a life-time.

Funny how those problems don't seem to happen in the rest of the world... :rolleyes:

(in response to the so called medical problems associated with non-circumcision)

You'll stop liking me again when you remember what a leftist liberal hippie I am. ;)
Oh. Almost forgot that! Almost, that is. :p

Funny how those problems don't seem to happen in the rest of the world... :rolleyes:


Sooo...somehow people are magically biologically different in the US? Give me a break... :rolleyes:

I emplore you to go read the annoucements from the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics and The world Health Organization on this before you call bullshit.

An little bit from the AAP's:

"The existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision."

And, pray tell, how does all of Europe and Australia and parts of Asia survive with rates of circumcision in the single digits???

Sooo...somehow people are magically biologically different in the US? Give me a break... :rolleyes:
I'm saying that for the rest of the world where circumcision is not the norm these aren't problems, and in that, I'm suggesting that there's something wrong with your study.

The foreskin has 20,000 nerve ends. You are missing out on a lot of good sex. (if the medical arguments do not sway you!)

I think that regardless of whether you believe that circumcision is a good idea or a bad idea I think that any PARENT would respect that it's the PARENT'S choice and not the government's.

Hell, I had a really hard time deciding. I had to spend a lot of my banked up 'sanity' on that decision! :(

there are lots of things that the government disallows parents from doing. i don't see why unnecessary surgery shouldnt be one of them.

not that i think circumcision should be banned.

it just shouldn't be done without a compelling reason. and "looking like daddy", "his future sexual prowess" and "not getting mocked in gym class" are not compelling reasons.

Alright well there are a lot of figures being thrown here or maybe not figures to be exact but where and where not it is the norm to circumscise. So I found this site.

http://www.circlist.com/rites/rates.html

I don't think many people's medical records account for circumcision or not these can only be so accurate.

As for me. I am glad my parents let the doctor do a little trimming. Do you realize how hard it would be to get a blowjob with the foreskin still on? I actually got into a conversation with some girls about this (one of them liked a guy from another country and blah blah blah didnt know if they practised it over there blah blah blah) every girl there said they would not go down on a guy who has not been circumcised, only a few of them said they wouldn't mind actually having sex because they wouldn't want to look at it. Go to wikipedia if you want to see a picture comparison of a circumcised and non circumcised penis.

I was circumcised. I don't see what's so bad about it.

there are lots of things that the government disallows parents from doing. i don't see why unnecessary surgery shouldnt be one of them.

not that i think circumcision should be banned.

it just shouldn't be done without a compelling reason. and "looking like daddy", "his future sexual prowess" and "not getting mocked in gym class" are not compelling reasons.
If you were born with a tail would you have liked to have that removed?

I didn't bother reading all 8 pages, but if I am wrong or if someone already said this, then please ignore :)

To my understanding the foreskin plays a major role in terms of pleasure. Having it removed can seriously detract, if not eliminate, any real pleasure for the man. I know some guys probably don't have any problem with their sex-drive with/or without their foreskin, but some guys suffer without it.

I am in the latter crowd, I am sad to say. Of course, my circumcision was done at the hands of a doctor who did it the old fashioned way with a knife (and did a real hackjob I think). Sex can be described as 'meh' as far as I am concerned. It's nice, but nothing to go and build a monument about. I was kind of dissapointed when I lost my virginity, my first thought was "This is what all the guys talk about?". Of course, looking back on it, I seriously suspect I am not feeling the 'whole experience'. The more I read up on the faults of circumcision, the more convinced I am that sex would have been a great deal more amazing to me had I not had that doctor go at me with a knife.

I would never have any child of mine circumcised, it serves no purpose and inflicts physical damage on the child that can last a life-time.


I am in complete agreement.

I think it's utterly shameful that there are people on this board who think that parents should have the right to inflict this upon their children.

Some of you seem proud of what you've done, you make me feel sick.

Meh. Honestly, I only just found out what that was, and before that, I thought mine was normal and the two year old I saw nude in a wading pool was weird.

I'm saying that for the rest of the world where circumcision is not the norm these aren't problems, and in that, I'm suggesting that there's something wrong with your study.


To suggest that none of the afformentioned conditions occur elsewhere in the world is just plain stupid and arrogant.

I don't know if you're a guy or not, but 1 in 600 odds of getting PENIS CANCER is not very comforting.

there are lots of things that the government disallows parents from doing. i don't see why unnecessary surgery shouldnt be one of them.

not that i think circumcision should be banned.

it just shouldn't be done without a compelling reason. and "looking like daddy", "his future sexual prowess" and "not getting mocked in gym class" are not compelling reasons.

Because the government hasn't decided it's unnecessary. Neither have doctors. Hell! Insurance companies cover it! Do you think insurance companies would cover ANY 'elective' surgery if they could help it? Lately, doctors have been leaning toward unnecessary. I respect that. As much as I respected them telling me that oat bran prevented colon cancer. :p ANyhoo... my point being that in a controversial and divisive issue like this, the PARENT CHOOSES!

YOu wouldn't cut the clitoral hood to save your daughter from UTIs (a female above the age of 15 routinely have 1 a year) so i don't see why you would remove your son's foreskin unless your religion called for it (and even then, I don't understand completely but I accept it grudgingly). I think Americans sight all these medical reasons becuase they have no way of voicing their real feelings about "looking like daddy" and "because it is what people do." In Europe, parts of Asia, and Australia, your son would be the weird looking one. In additon, American doctors are hopelessly unable to give the right advice about intact penis, they constantly have the parents pull it back before it is ready to be touched! Maybe if insurance companies would stop paying for it, people would start smarting up! and doctors would start learning from their european counterparts on how to treat an intact penis.

If you were born with a tail would you have liked to have that removed?

Depends on the tail.

Removing it would sure make buying pants easier.

On the other hand, if it were prehensile, I could have a lot of fun! :D

*
My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.
BLUE
Well since you eliminate religion(very important to more then half the world), culture(because you have never subscribed to cultural absurdness yourself right?), and tradition. How can you even claim you want someone to explain?
You want a medical reason--just not any that have been given ever before.
You have effectively said you will accept no reason from any of the accepted motivations for behavior--hence my point, you just want to tell people they are wrong.

You are just looking to beat people up---If you ask for opinions then you can not place limitations on the question.

RED
Now, I take that to mean you are also anti-abortion. I will be happy to send you a 3 demensional unltrasound of my son at 4 months in the womb with fully developed hands, and and face, completely a little human--so I again take your statement to mean you are anti-abortion--because if not your statment is hypocrictical based on your own logic.
my son:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/IndioRazaRepublica/3d3.jpg

If you were born with a tail would you have liked to have that removed?
you think that a normal penis is the same as a birth defect???

On the other hand, if it were prehensile, I could have a lot of fun! :D

Barely a day goes by that I don't wish I had a prehensile tail.

If no one saw my last message, I shall post it again.Meh. Honestly, I only just found out what that was, and before that, I thought mine was normal and the two year old I saw nude in a wading pool was weird.

The foreskin is not a birth defect!! A tail is!

Because the government hasn't decided it's unnecessary. Neither have doctors. Hell! Insurance companies cover it! Do you think insurance companies would cover ANY 'elective' surgery if they could help it? Lately, doctors have been leaning toward unnecessary. I respect that. As much as I respected them telling me that oat bran prevented colon cancer. :p ANyhoo... my point being that in a controversial and divisive issue like this, the PARENT CHOOSES!
as with most things, the choice must be up to the parents and their doctor. im not in favor of banning it.

you think that a normal penis is the same as a birth defect???
No, but they are both useless. And well the less nerve endings in the penis, the longer you last, the more likely you will be able to get a girl off. And that definitely helps the pride a little bit.

The foreskin is not a birth defect!!

Depends on who you ask.

If my son's brit milah can be called "ritual mutilation", I believe I should have the same right to call the foreskin a birth defect and compare the uncut penis to a banana slug.

So there. :p

YOu wouldn't cut the clitoral hood to save your daughter from UTIs (a female above the age of 15 routinely have 1 a year) so i don't see why you would remove your son's foreskin unless your religion called for it (and even then, I don't understand completely but I accept it grudgingly). I think Americans sight all these medical reasons becuase they have no way of voicing their real feelings about "looking like daddy" and "because it is what people do." In Europe, parts of Asia, and Australia, your son would be the weird looking one. .

Females in America over the age of 15 do not ruotinely get UTIs at a rate of 1 a year-- That is disgusting, and sad, someone needs to teach the women where you are from about hygene.

And please before you insist they do--site the reliable source which states that absurd statistic to be true.
You may have made a good point if did not include a bold-faced lie.

Depends on the tail.

Removing it would sure make buying pants easier.

On the other hand, if it were prehensile, I could have a lot of fun! :D

life would be so much cooler if humanity had evolved from new world monkeys instead of old world apes.

Useless? 20,000 nerve ends??? jsut because you can't last long enough....ok, I wont finish that.

Perhaps we should cut out all uselss parts at birth. :headbang:

Useless? 20,000 nerve ends???

Tails have nerve endings, too.

No, but they are both useless. And well the less nerve endings in the penis, the longer you last, the more likely you will be able to get a girl off. And that definitely helps the pride a little bit.
or you could learn some sexual technique and leave your penis intact.

BLUE
Well since you eliminate religion(very important to more then half the world), culture(because you have never subscribed to cultural absurdness yourself right?), and tradition. How can you even claim you want someone to explain?
You want a medical reason--just not any that have been given ever before.
You have effectively said you will accept no reason from any of the accepted motivations for behavior--hence my point, you just want to tell people they are wrong.

You are just looking to beat people up---If you ask for opinions then you can not place limitations on the question.

RED
Now, I take that to mean you are also anti-abortion. I will be happy to send you a 3 demensional unltrasound of my son at 4 months in the womb with fully developed hands, and and face, completely a little human--so I again take your statement to mean you are anti-abortion--because if not your statment is hypocrictical based on your own logic.
my son:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y211/IndioRazaRepublica/3d3.jpg


You're the second idiot to just bring up abortion rather than attempt to explain your position. Why not actually try to outline your reasoning with regard to this topic if you disagree with me?

I'm suggesting I don't buy any argument I've heard so far - I'm not closed to anyone trying to convince me otherwise.

Useless? 20,000 nerve ends??? jsut because you can't last long enough....ok, I wont finish that.



I take it you're not a male....

Useless? 20,000 nerve ends??? jsut because you can't last long enough....ok, I wont finish that.

Perhaps we should cut out all uselss parts at birth. :headbang:
Your either very selfish in the sack or a virgin. One of the two.

(I should have added that that number includes "Sexually active after 18) The number is found in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, year 2003. Here is a site that talks about how women get recurrent UTIs:
http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/utiadult/#risk

the number is staggeringly higher than men. Yet we do not slice and dice to save them.

as with most things, the choice must be up to the parents and their doctor. im not in favor of banning it.

That's my only point. I'm neither overly concerned about circumcision or a lack thereof. As far as my concern, it's none of my business. But I frown on other people making such decisions for me. Especially such a difficult to support one.

I had to make this decision myself just less than two years ago. EVERYBODY had a freakin' opinion! Everybody except my doctor who I could've used one from!! :mad:

Females in America over the age of 15 do not ruotinely get UTIs at a rate of 1 a year-- That is disgusting, and sad, someone needs to teach the women where you are from about hygene.
I get UTI's about 4 times a year, and it isn't a hygene thing, I have a medical problem, assuming that bad hygene is the only thing that can cause a UTI is ignorant of the facts.

It is a common medical problem that I have, it affects somewhere around 1 in 8 women. So, maybe that is where the statistics are coming from.

or you could learn some sexual technique and leave your penis intact.
Or you could have the foreskin removed...still learn technique and call it good. Now I am not calling for circumcision to be mandatory but it should be open to the parent's.

My view is if you dont see somthing wrong with sexually mutilating a baby against its own will you have some serious problems. I was circumcised and I hated it. I am currently restoring my foreskin and I have found out that 90% of the rumours about foreskin arent true and 10% of them are WAY overexagerated. I think all circumcised men should restore (just dont pull to hard (trust me)). My dad said somthing like "Well your wife will probably think that that is gross" Well I dont give a shit... I love women however I think a vagina is disgusting (some hairy cervacise that bleeds once a month) so women probably think the same about guys penises (eitheir condition). I think if a woman loved me and found out I have foreskin it wouldnt matter. Why must America still mutilate children?

Oh and I noticed alot of you mentioned the cutting off of extra fingers. Well that is wrong too. There is nothing wrong with being a polyidactic and I myself would think that it would be cool to have six fingers. Also my view is that if I saw a beatiful woman and then I noticed that she had six fingers I would still think she was pretty... it wouldnt bother me.

ONce you have had one UTI (and are a woman), you get about 1-2 per year. Plain and simple. Google it, I provided a site above. SHould we start slitting off the clitoral hood?

Ah! That's the very first valid reason I've seen in favor of not having it done. Kudos!


Are you kiddding - then why not keep all children in a bubble if that's a reason not to have it done

You're the second idiot to just bring up abortion rather than attempt to explain your position. Why not actually try to outline your reasoning with regard to this topic if you disagree with me?

I'm suggesting I don't buy any argument I've heard so far - I'm not closed to anyone trying to convince me otherwise.

First throw another insult I will report you to he mods.
Second my son is not circumsized--I could not allow a doctor to take him away and infliuct pain when I could not be present to comfort him--the hospital would not meet my demands so there you have that, you assumed because I did not agree with complete flame bait that I was against your supposition, wrong.

Your logic that it is the babies body means you must be against abortion, I noticed you ducked the question.

You also ducked the part about effectively removing any avenue of explanation in your forst post.

All you did was throw an insult, and you question my intelligence?

Do you realize how hard it would be to get a blowjob with the foreskin still on? I actually got into a conversation with some girls about this (one of them liked a guy from another country and blah blah blah didnt know if they practised it over there blah blah blah) every girl there said they would not go down on a guy who has not been circumcised, only a few of them said they wouldn't mind actually having sex because they wouldn't want to look at it. Go to wikipedia if you want to see a picture comparison of a circumcised and non circumcised penis.
...It's never been a problem for me. Just because some girls are idiots and are scared of an uncut penis doesn't mean it's a valid reason for hacking off part of your manhood.

Or you could have the foreskin removed...still learn technique and call it good. Now I am not calling for circumcision to be mandatory but it should be open to the parent's.


No, it should be open to the adult, not the parent.

or you could learn some sexual technique and leave your penis intact.

I see....

So let's put more pressure on the males to perform, because we all know its HIS fault that it takes some women forever to get off, if at all....

As a man circumcised at birth, I can safely say that I don't give a damn one way or the other. I mean, it's true that circumcision is mostly unnecessary, but it doesn't really detract from anything. Okay, so your skin's a bit rougher, but you don't have to worry about cleaning it. I've never had any problems with my sexual experiences, either. I mean, it's not exactly earth-shattering, but I have a few friends with foreskin who don't really find it as great as it's cracked up to be, either. It also seems you have about the same risk of getting infections whether you get circumcised or not, albeight from different issues. It's just luck of the draw. Bottom line is that it's not "cruel" and it doesn't detract from one's life even if it doesn't necessarily improve it. If I hadn't been told I'd been circumcised, I never would have felt anything was missing or that my life could have been better, otherwise, and I still don't feel as if that were the case. If parents want to spend money on an unecessary operation, that's there choice, especially if it's for religious purposes. It's also perfectly reasonable to want your child to look "normal", too, because children have enough crap to deal with from others. Of course, if circumcision is on its way out, no one will have to worry about this, anymore, will they?

To suggest that none of the afformentioned conditions occur elsewhere in the world is just plain stupid and arrogant.

I don't know if you're a guy or not, but 1 in 600 odds of getting PENIS CANCER is not very comforting.
I'm saying that the numbers in your study seem rather high seeing as I've never heard such things in other parts of the world.

i.e. I'm saying that because americans have the same physiology as the rest of the world, it's not that these rates are higher in the states, it's that your study is lying.

Separation of Church and State.

Keep your State out of my Church.
Sigged!
Also, really it isn't mutilation. It doesn't do anything bad to a MALE child, and it's actually healthier. My parents could decide to put me on antibiotics if I had the flue. Overuse of antibiotics is sure as hell worse than having a flap of skin cut out. Your an atheist, right (I'm asking the thread starter)?

First throw another insult I will report you to he mods.
Second my son is not circumsized--I could not allow a doctor to take him away and infliuct pain when I could not be present to comfort him--the hospital would not meet my demands so there you have that, you assumed because I did not agree with complete flame bait that I was against your supposition, wrong.

Your logic that it is the babies body means you must be against abortion, I noticed you ducked the question.

You also ducked the part about effectively removing any avenue of explanation in your forst post.

All you did was throw an insult, and you question my intelligence?

I was the first 'idiot'. I asked him if he were pro-choice because I don't see how someone can believe that a parent has the right to decide whether their child lives or dies but doesn't have the right to have a foreskin removed.

He didn't give a satisfactory response to me either.

...It's never been a problem for me. Just because some girls are idiots and are scared of an uncut penis doesn't mean it's a valid reason for hacking off part of your manhood.
Regardless of how you see an uncut penis or they do, there is no reason for a government to legislate against it. If and when you have kids, you can make sure they don't get circumcised as for me if I get boys they will be.

I'm saying that the numbers in your study seem rather high seeing as I've never heard such things in other parts of the world.

i.e. I'm saying that because americans have the same physiology as the rest of the world, it's not that these rates are higher in the states, it's that your study is lying.


Ok, then I want you to write to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and tell them they're wrong (seeing as that's where the data came from). I'm interested to see what they say.

So let's put more pressure on the males to perform, because we all know its HIS fault that it takes some women forever to get off, if at all....
Perhaps if men like you actually took the time to figure out what feels good for a woman instead of just doing what feels good for you, then women you encounter would get off with much more frequency.

here's a hint: Most women don't climax during intercourse, foreplay is where it's at. If a woman tells you she orgasms every time you have sex, she's probably lying to you.

ONce you have had one UTI (and are a woman), you get about 1-2 per year. Plain and simple. Google it, I provided a site above. SHould we start slitting off the clitoral hood?
Again untrue,

"Many women suffer from frequent UTIs. Nearly 20 percent of women who have a UTI will have another, and 30 percent of those will have yet another. Of the last group, 80 percent will have recurrences."
http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/utiadult/

No, much like the starter of this thread you use flasehoods and half logic to justify the superiority of your own opinion. I have no concern with male process and the female process is typically done in a brutal and criminal fashion, again you pretend I have suggested doing wrong--because I pointed out you were making up false statistics to justify your opinion.

Your are using emotional deflection, attempting to paint a bad picture of the person you are spekaing with to hide the fact you really have no more foundation for your beliefs then the opposition.

I have already stated--my son di not undergo that process. The difference being I do not beleive that makes me the moral superior to a parent who chooses it--

Unlike you, and the thread starter.

Are you kiddding - then why not keep all children in a bubble if that's a reason not to have it done
if there is no compelling reason to have it done, then it is wrong to take the risk no matter how minor.

Regardless of how you see an uncut penis or they do, there is no reason for a government to legislate against it. If and when you have kids, you can make sure they don't get circumcised as for me if I get boys they will be.
I never said the government should legislate it. I'm saying it's a stupid practice.

Again untrue,

"Many women suffer from frequent UTIs. Nearly 20 percent of women who have a UTI will have another, and 30 percent of those will have yet another. Of the last group, 80 percent will have recurrences."
http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/utiadult/

No, much like the starter of this thread you use flasehoods and half logic to justify the superiority of your own opinion. I have no concern with male process and the female process is typically done in a brutal and criminal fashion, again you pretend I have suggested doing wrong--because I pointed out you were making up false statistics to justify your opinion.

Your are using emotional deflection, attempting to paint a bad picture of the person you are spekaing with to hide the fact you really have no more foundation for your beliefs then the opposition.

I have already stated--my son di not undergo that process. The difference being I do not beleive that makes me the moral superior to a parent who chooses it--

Unlike you, and the thread starter.


My point is obvious (and the numbers back it up) UTIs (as well as other infections) are more of a problem in women, but we do not remove pieces of their anatomy to circumvent this as we do in males. If I had more time I could find you more sites, my original numbers came from the AAP book I cited.

I never said the government should legislate it. I'm saying it's a stupid practice.

The OP believes it should be legislated. My only argument is that it shouldn't be. I thought that's what this thread was about. Not about right or wrong. healthy or unhealthy. But who makes that decision.

I was the first 'idiot'. I asked him if he were pro-choice because I don't see how someone can believe that a parent has the right to decide whether their child lives or dies but doesn't have the right to have a foreskin removed.

He didn't give a satisfactory response to me either.
Perfect,
LG and I are complete opposites.
I rarely see an arguement where I agree with him--however
it seems we both know hypocracy when we see it.

I see....

So let's put more pressure on the males to perform, because we all know its HIS fault that it takes some women forever to get off, if at all....

yes auto, you DO need to learn some sexual technique if you want to please a woman. sorry, just sticking it in isnt going to be enough.

First throw another insult I will report you to he mods.
Second my son is not circumsized--I could not allow a doctor to take him away and infliuct pain when I could not be present to comfort him--the hospital would not meet my demands so there you have that, you assumed because I did not agree with complete flame bait that I was against your supposition, wrong.

Your logic that it is the babies body means you must be against abortion, I noticed you ducked the question.

You also ducked the part about effectively removing any avenue of explanation in your forst post.

All you did was throw an insult, and you question my intelligence?



Firstly, don't threaten to report to moderation. It marks you out as a pathetic squealer. Either do it or rise above it.

I've made my postion on abortion clear elsewhere in this thread (Not that it has anything to do with this matter) Your logical reasoning is, in any case, seriously flawed. Why should I necessarily feel the same way about a fetus as I do about a baby living independently outside the womb.

There are plenty of abortion threads, go and join one if you feel the need to talk about that instead.

OH, and I never suggested YOU did something wrong. In the end, a government cannot legislate on it, but I can't believe there is very little research and questioning done in this area within the states...especially when our major medical organizations are telling us to stop cutting!

Perhaps if men like you actually took the time to figure out what feels good for a woman instead of just doing what feels good for you, then women you encounter would get off with much more frequency.

here's a hint: Most women don't climax during intercourse, foreplay is where it's at. If a woman tells you she orgasms every time you have sex, she's probably lying to you.


HA HA!!!

I know how to please a woman Dakini, and I resent being lumped into the sterotype that men don't know how. I always communicate during sex, and to me getting a woman off is more important that getting myself off. So we can just stop with the unfair generalizations, mkay?

The first girl I slept with was a total dud. Nothing got her off, and I always engage in foreplay for at least an hour before going to work. No matter how hard, fast, slow, gentle, rough I got, she just couldn't get off.

Now, the second girl I slept with....I thought she was going to have a freakin' heart attack from all the moaning and panting.

When are women going to realize that it's not all on the guy?

yes auto, you DO need to learn some sexual technique if you want to please a woman. sorry, just sticking it in isnt going to be enough.


Again, stop with the sterotypes. There ARE guys out there that know how to have sex the right way.

Your either very selfish in the sack or a virgin. One of the two.
Again, not all women expect a man to be like the energizer bunny in terms of intercourse. There are other things a man can do.

HA HA!!!

I know how to please a woman Dakini, and I resent being lumped into the sterotype that men don't know how. I always communicate during sex, and to me getting a woman off is more important that getting myself off. So we can just stop with the unfair generalizations, mkay?

The first girl I slept with was a total dud. Nothing got her off, and I always engage in foreplay for at least an hour before going to work. No matter how hard, fast, slow, gentle, rough I got, she just couldn't get off.

Now, the second girl I slept with....I thought she was going to have a freakin' heart attack from all the moaning and panting.

When are women going to realize that it's not all on the guy?
When are guys going to realize that different things work for different women. A woman is not a dud because she doesn't reach orgasm with you. There are many possible reasons, she might not be completely comfortable around you, you might not be doing something she likes, she might be to inexperienced to know what she likes, she might not have been in the mood, she might not have had a high libido and just figured "what the hell, I'll let him have his fun" the second girl you were with could have been acting to try to bolster your self esteem.

Again, not all women expect a man to be like the energizer bunny in terms of intercourse. There are other things a man can do.
Really? Because living in fundamentalist america i know nothing of foreplay or oral or anything along those lines. Really? We can use someting else other then the penis? Please tell me more.

Again, not all women expect a man to be like the energizer bunny in terms of intercourse. There are other things a man can do.

Complete agreement :)


The history of circumcision is interesting to read about. It started as only cutting a small piece of the foreskin (see the statue of David, it is circumsized in the first form of the practice). As the years progressed, more and more was cut. Now, at least where I live and have given birth, you can havea circumcision done in the old way, a "conservative cutting" they like to call it.

It's a sad world when people become outraged because someone says 'maybe you shouldn't take a blade to your babie's cock'.

I wish someone could have stopped my parents from being able to do it. My cock would still be one peice if they had.

In my opinion it's easier for me to accept my parent's being outraged and getting over it, then for me to realize later in my life that my sex-drive would probably be better if a doctor with shaky hands didn't take a scalpel to my pee-pee.

If a person wants a circumcision, great, he can do so when he is old enough to make a mature decision. Don't start hacking flesh off my cock and tell me you know whats good for me while flashing a benevolent smile.

Again, stop with the sterotypes. There ARE guys out there that know how to have sex the right way.
Someone who thinks they have to last a very long time in the sack probably doesn't know what they're doing.

Really? Because living in fundamentalist america i know nothing of foreplay or oral or anything along those lines. Really? We can use someting else other then the penis? Please tell me more.
Well, then why do you put so much emphasis on lasting a long time without ejaculation that you would decrease your own sensitivity in order to achieve that goal and then claim it's selfish to want such sensitivity?

When are guys going to realize that different things work for different women. A woman is not a dud because she doesn't reach orgasm with you. There are many possible reasons, she might not be completely comfortable around you, you might not be doing something she likes, she might be to inexperienced to know what she likes, she might not have been in the mood, she might not have had a high libido and just figured "what the hell, I'll let him have his fun" the second girl you were with could have been acting to try to bolster your self esteem.

Again, why are you lumping all guys into 1 category?

I suppose I could do the same and cite that you women need to communicate more and not just lay there on your back. Take some initiative and not leave it all on the guy. (See how stupid and selfish the argument becomes?)

And why is it whenever a guy says that he got a woman off, other women always say 'well, she must have been acting'? We were very open with eachother, and though she didn't have an orgasm every time, she did have plenty with me.

Firstly, don't threaten to report to moderation. It marks you out as a pathetic squealer. Either do it or rise above it.

I've made my postion on abortion clear elsewhere in this thread (Not that it has anything to do with this matter) Your logical reasoning is, in any case, seriously flawed. Why should I necessarily feel the same way about a fetus as I do about a baby living independently outside the womb.

There are plenty of abortion threads, go and join one if you feel the need to talk about that instead.
Still going to ignore those two question huh?

Pathetic? As in incapable of making an intelligent response so instead throwing an insult. You mean pathetic like that?
Squealer? Have I stepped into a James Cagney movie?

You posted a thread and applied for people to debate you, I have no idea why you did that when obivously have no ability to voice an intelligent and informed opinion.

You ignore that fact that any reasonble person from either side of the fence sees you as being nothing more then arroagant hypocrit.

I dont want to join another thread, you asked, I answered, and would like to see you address my points.

As far as being a squealer goes, the Mods are here to ensure that flamebaiting trolls do not flood the forums with useless insults and pointless threads.

Since you asked for debate and offer none I would say you qualify.
Now this is the internet so spare me the tough talk, it doesnt impress anyone.

Way to stay on topic

Assholes

Perfect,
LG and I are complete opposites.
I rarely see an arguement where I agree with him--however
it seems we both know hypocracy when we see it.

SOmetimes, that's what it takes. :D

Well, then why do you put so much emphasis on lasting a long time without ejaculation that you would decrease your own sensitivity in order to achieve that goal and then claim it's selfish to want such sensitivity?
Well not all women will agree that good foreplay over rides bad sex. One of the girls I knew blasted this guy for giving good oral but then having a five second spasm on top of her. So, for women around here it would be better to have both then just one. Would you agree with that?

Someone who thinks they have to last a very long time in the sack probably doesn't know what they're doing.


Again, not every one behaves, acts, and thinks in a sterotypical way. Not everyone thinks that lenghty endurance = female orgasm.

Ok, then I want you to write to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and tell them they're wrong (seeing as that's where the data came from). I'm interested to see what they say.
By the way, your link didn't work, I have no way of knowing whether it's actually a credible source of information or not. I'm going with not since those numbers seem off.

OH, and I never suggested YOU did something wrong. In the end, a government cannot legislate on it, but I can't believe there is very little research and questioning done in this area within the states...especially when our major medical organizations are telling us to stop cutting!You did indeed infer it, and you seem to ignore the fact that statistics do not back up the lie you posted.
What 'major medical organizations' are these?
Or is this another of your special statistics?

Again, not every one behaves, acts, and thinks in a sterotypical way. Not everyone thinks that lenghty endurance = female orgasm.
Then why do you cite being circumcised as adding to the sexual prowess because it makes a man last longer?

By the way, your link didn't work, I have no way of knowing whether it's actually a credible source of information or not. I'm going with not since those numbers seem off.


http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

Work fine for me....

Then why do you cite being circumcised as adding to the sexual prowess because it makes a man last longer?


Show me where I said that.

You did indeed infer it, and you seem to ignore the fact that statistics do not back up the lie you posted.
What 'major medical organizations' are these?
Or is this another of your special statistics?

the amercan academy of pediatrics:

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm


The American Medical Association
The World Health Organization

You do know what the AAP is? correct? You know, those people who decide which immunizations your kid gets? The ones that decide the check up schedules....those doctors your kid's see? Good, glad we got that cleared up.

It should be banned, yes.

Is it true, that circumcision is pretty common in the US? I'm not sure where I heard that, but I was quite surpised.

Yeah it's pretty common I only know like three people that didn't get it.

Again, why are you lumping all guys into 1 category?

I suppose I could do the same and cite that you women need to communicate more and not just lay there on your back. Take some initiative and not leave it all on the guy. (See how stupid and selfish the argument becomes?)

And why is it whenever a guy says that he got a woman off, other women always say 'well, she must have been acting'? We were very open with eachother, and though she didn't have an orgasm every time, she did have plenty with me.
I'm not lumping all men into one category, I'm lumping you in with the men who don't know what they're doing.

I never said it was entirely the man's responsability to get a woman off, but your inability to get your first girlfriend off does not make her a dud. It could just make her inexperienced. In my first relationship, I didn't reach orgasm... it's not that the guy was inept, it's just that I wasn't comfortable enough.

I also suggested that the problem with your first girlfriend could have been on her end, in fact I did more of that than I did suggesting that perhaps your second girlfriend is a good actress.

I am in complete agreement.

I think it's utterly shameful that there are people on this board who think that parents should have the right to inflict this upon their children.

Some of you seem proud of what you've done, you make me feel sick.

Then don't circumcise your kids (if you have any), but don't impose your will on others...exercising free choice actually works both ways - even in situations you disagree with...

Useless? 20,000 nerve ends??? jsut because you can't last long enough....ok, I wont finish that.


I take it you're not a male....


I see....

So let's put more pressure on the males to perform, because we all know its HIS fault that it takes some women forever to get off, if at all....

You suggested that the ability to last long is integral to sexual preformance.

I'm not lumping all men into one category, I'm lumping you in with the men who don't know what they're doing.

Very easy for you to do seeing as you're on the internet and have never seen me have sex. :rolleyes: You get an A for the day.

I never said it was entirely the man's responsability to get a woman off, but your inability to get your first girlfriend off does not make her a dud. It could just make her inexperienced. In my first relationship, I didn't reach orgasm... it's not that the guy was inept, it's just that I wasn't comfortable enough.



Good, glad the acknowledge that it's not all on the guy.

"Circumcision is not essential to a child’s well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,”

So that is asking people to stop the cutting?

Then don't circumcise your kids (if you have any), but don't impose your will on others...exercising free choice actually works both ways - even in situations you disagree with...

Don't impose your will on others. That's actually a good argument against circumcision.

Yeah it's pretty common I only know like three people that didn't get it.


Rates are about 50-60%. It varies by region tho. The west is only like 35% while the midwest is 80ish (now these are numbers from the last few years...meaning these penises are like 2 or 3 years old)

"Circumcision is not essential to a child’s well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,”

So that is asking people to stop the cutting?
My braces were unnecessary and quite painful, I didn't have the choice in them. Doesn't mean my parents were wrong in that choice.

Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights.

I don't think that a justification citing the religious tradition is unacceptable. The Jewish people, for example, see circumcision as a sign of their covenant with God. Circumcision is also considered a holy rite in Christianity, which is one of the world's largest religions. Also, dosen't banning something that is part of a culuture's unique tradition or religilous practice constitue a violation of civil rights itself? I for one am not convinced that circumcision causes the affects its been accused of, and I think that banning it wouold consititute a worse offense than the supposed drawbacks.

LOL!

<snip!> (pun intended)

"They circumcised him!"


Yes, my friends ... Texans are mostly foreskin! :D

so, like, a 10 pound foreskin is the in-pants equivalent of a 10 gallon hat on a Texan's head?

sounds like a bad case of over-compensation at both ends.

btw, great joke.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm

Work fine for me....
That's a different link than you posted earlier.

Also, check out the american academy of pediactrics link that basically says all the risks you reported are negligible.

(link already posted by Carriedom)

*ok, I was arguing with someone about this the other day; but I don't recall seeing anything about it on this forum in my time, apologies if it's already been done*


It's my view that infant male circumcision should be outlawed in any civilised society - I'm not talking about adults having it done here, or indeed the dreadful practice of female circumcision which is thankfully limited to a few North African shitholes anyway - just the circumcision of baby/infant sons at the request of their parents/guardians.


My reasoning is fundamentally based on human rights, i.e. it's the child's body and they have a right to bodily integrity. If informed consent cannot be given for such a procedure then it shouldn't be carried out - simple as that


Justifications citing religion, culture or tradition are unacceptable in my opinion. Even medical arguments, which are not universally recognised, are no excuse for violating human rights. There is a slowly growing consensus about the damaging effects of the procedure, especially upon sexual response, but even this is beside the point.


To those who disagree, I'd like them to explain why it's ok for parents to allow genital mutilation to be performed upon their own helpless children - I personally can think of few things that could be considered more depraved.

Hell no it shouldn't be banned. Violation of human rights? Could you have any more of an absurd argument...Barring ALL religious ideas, it is a hygene issue and is healthier. Damaging effects...damn dude this is sad...

Proud that I was circumsized as an infant and hell I wouldn't want to go through THAT pain now...

Infant to decide what they need...LMFAO...wow man...wow...

You suggested that the ability to last long is integral to sexual preformance.

Wow, way to totally interpret a post the wrong way. I wasn't even HINTING at that.

Please read again, because I have clearly stated throughout the past several pages of this discussion that sex should be about both partners, not just the male. Never ONCE did I draw the conclusion that circumcision = female orgasm, so I have no idea why you did.

The first quote you cited is mainly in response to:

just because you can't last long enough

Hence why for the past several pages I've been talking about responsibility and communication between partners.

Dakini this is a summary of what is state on Auto's cited source.

"Circumcision -- Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance
Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn. "

My braces were unnecessary and quite painful, I didn't have the choice in them. Doesn't mean my parents were wrong in that choice.

But when it was all said and done, you hadn't lost anything. Now, if your parents had your dentist knock out a few of your teeth as a child to make your remaining teeth look nicer, then you would be close to home on the argument.

"Circumcision is not essential to a child’s well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision. Instead, we encourage parents to discuss the benefits and risks of circumcision with their pediatrician, and then make an informed decision about what is in the best interest of their child,”

So that is asking people to stop the cutting?


Yup, in my book it is! When they go from saying cut away to saying..."errr, we take that back and no longer recommend." At the very least, they are telling us to educate ourselves (which I hope threads like this do!) YOud be amazed by how many women give birth and just figure that circumcision is what comes next (then again, in the USA, many women also think cows milk is ok for their kids...so i guess its a shoulder shrugger). You use to not see the procedure (and I know many still opt not to-- like my cousin and friend- both couldn't take watching their kid strapped down, spread eagle).

edit: "Kids" should read "infants" as cows milk is ok for kids...

Dakini this is a summary of what is state on Auto's cited source.

"Circumcision -- Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance
Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn. "
So his own source was saying that there's no point to circumcise infants?

Dude, read your own source before citing it as supporting your argument.

Still going to ignore those two question huh?

Pathetic? As in incapable of making an intelligent response so instead throwing an insult. You mean pathetic like that?
Squealer? Have I stepped into a James Cagney movie?

You posted a thread and applied for people to debate you, I have no idea why you did that when obivously have no ability to voice an intelligent and informed opinion.

You ignore that fact that any reasonble person from either side of the fence sees you as being nothing more then arroagant hypocrit.

I dont want to join another thread, you asked, I answered, and would like to see you address my points.

As far as being a squealer goes, the Mods are here to ensure that flamebaiting trolls do not flood the forums with useless insults and pointless threads.

Since you asked for debate and offer none I would say you qualify.
Now this is the internet so spare me the tough talk, it doesnt impress anyone.


Tough talk? What exactly are you on about?


I'll think you'll find that the mature thing to do is to simply report a thread or post that you happen to object to, as opposed to treating the rest of us to a pompous lecture.

My original point was very simple and yet you seem to have conveniently ignored it. I simply asked for justifications as to why parents should be allowed to perform genital mutilations upon their own children. If you want to join the debate why not start there? Lateral reasoning and erm, circumlocution, unfortunately illustrate that you are the one who is 'incapable' of debate - not me.


I know you're all flustered and embarrased about being called up for being a tell-tale (is that a more acceptable word for you?), but please try to read through your posts before you submit them in future.

That's a different link than you posted earlier.

Also, check out the american academy of pediactrics link that basically says all the risks you reported are negligible.

(link already posted by Carriedom)

No, it is the same link. The second time I posted the raw link and didn't condense it into a [url=] format.

And no, nowhere in that article that I could say does it say that those conditions are the result of neglegence.

My braces were unnecessary and quite painful, I didn't have the choice in them. Doesn't mean my parents were wrong in that choice.
Interesting point. My daughter needs braces...well to your point I suppose doesnt NEED them...painful you say?

Wow, way to totally interpret a post the wrong way. I wasn't even HINTING at that.

Please read again, because I have clearly stated throughout the past several pages of this discussion that sex should be about both partners, not just the male. Never ONCE did I draw the conclusion that circumcision = female orgasm, so I have no idea why you did.
Then why the hell have you been arguing this point? It's not related to the topic.

Ugh, I'll just stick to the guy who was saying that having more nerve endings but lasting less time is selfish.

My braces were unnecessary and quite painful, I didn't have the choice in them. Doesn't mean my parents were wrong in that choice.
depending on your age

if you didnt want braces and your parents forced them on you

yes they were wrong.

But when it was all said and done, you hadn't lost anything. Now, if your parents had your dentist knock out a few of your teeth as a child to make your remaining teeth look nicer, then you would be close to home on the argument.
How about wisdome teeth then? I had four teeth pulled out of my jaw, in a long surgery which because of which i do not have feeling on part of the outside of my jaw. I still to this day am glad I got those removed. Side note, they did have to pull two teeth when they put on my expander...a thing used to expand your jaw, frequently is used before braces.

Well, like I said, the guys I've encountered who weren't cut lasted longer. Most likely because they were more experienced, but nonetheless, being uncut does not mean you'll blow your load right away nor does being cut mean you'll last forever.

Furthermore, I'm young, the guys I'm going to be doing things with are young, if they go early then that's not a problem, they can spend 20 minutes doing other things and then be ready to go again. Also, it's not often I reach orgasm through intercourse anyways, most women don't.

So when do you? :D

No, it is the same link. The second time I posted the raw link and didn't condense it into a [url=] format.

And no, nowhere in that article that I could say does it say that those conditions are the result of neglegence.
Negligible != negligence

So when do you? :D
Either on my own or during foreplay most often.
Occasionally during intercourse, but that's usually after a lot of foreplay...

Interesting point. My daughter needs braces...well to your point I suppose doesnt NEED them...painful you say?
Painful but worth it.

Then why the hell have you been arguing this point? It's not related to the topic.


Because the argument began to sidetrack into wether or not circumcision increases or decreases a male's sexual ability. I argued that no, it doesn't and that females have just as much of a role in sex as males do. Hardly seems off topic to me.

Braces unnecessary? WHy did you have them then? I do know that straight teeth is not just a cosmetic thing. My father is a dentist (so I'm going from what he has told me...tho I have not looked it up) and he says that misaligned teeth can lead to sinus problems, increased cavity numbers (I think this comes from larger spaces maybe?), and jaw pain. Tho with the money that orthos make, I wouldn't hesitate to think that many people get braces for no reason.


sorry, that is sort of OT

My braces were unnecessary and quite painful, I didn't have the choice in them. Doesn't mean my parents were wrong in that choice.
I more or less begged my parents for braces.

I was sick of being called a rabbit.

depending on your age

if you didnt want braces and your parents forced them on you

yes they were wrong.
No they were not. Because the later you get them, the more painful it becomes. They were right in the choice. Just like when they had my widom teeth removed at 16 instead of waiting until i was 18 so i could make the choice on my own. Because given those two extra years the teeth may have actually become part of the jaw and even more painful to remove.

Negligible != negligence


Well no kidding, but show me where in that link it says that all the conditions I mentioned before are the result of negligence. That was my point, don't know how you missed it.