NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, i guess this mostly applies to men. But I supposed if you are a woman and were circumcised(female genital mutilation), then you can vote on the poll too. I just want to see the ratio of men that are circumcised compared to those that are not. This came about yesterday, when somehow i found out that a friend of mine, is not circumcised. Which, i am, and i thought a lot of people are, but apparently there are more that are not. So i just wanna see what it is here on NS.

Wtf? Out of all the people i know, i only know one who was circumcised, and he is a muslim.

Wtf? Out of all the people i know, i only know one who was circumcised, and he is a muslim.

really? So, it is an oddity then, that I am?

Wtf? Out of all the people i know, i only know one who was circumcised, and he is a muslim.

hhmmm....thats weird most of my friends are circumcised....

EDIT: MALE friends....*cough* >.>

Wtf? Out of all the people i know, i only know one who was circumcised, and he is a muslim.

I am, and I'm a christian, it's pretty common to have it done just after birth in America.

really? So, it is an oddity, then that I am?

*shrugs* maybe it is more popular in America.

No, that barbaric tradition never got popular in Sweden. Here, pretty much nobody is circumcised.

Most Americans have it done, not for any real religious or health reason but just so the doctor can make a few extra bucks.

*shrugs* maybe it is more popular in America.

It's practically standard here.

I am... sorry, I don't look to see if others around me are tho.

Didn't we have this type of thread like six times in the past?

HELL NO! and thankful. ;)

oh, wait, were you asking guys?

Circumscision is the norm in America. It isn't the norm in the rest of the Western world - quite the opposite, actually.

Why do you call it "female gential mutilation" but not "male genital mutilation"?

It's practically standard here.

In england, some people use it as an insult to call someone circumcised.

*shrugs* maybe it is more popular in America.

i think so, isn't it more hygenic anyway?


Can't you get a form of cancer in that....er, area

(most awkward thread EVER)

Yeah.

Most porn stars are circumcized, so it kind of gives guys in the US an immediate advantage.

Circumscision is the norm in America. It isn't the norm in the rest of the Western world - quite the opposite, actually.

Why do you call it "female gential mutilation" but not "male genital mutilation"?

Because afterwards we can still feel pleasure, and amnesty international says so.

i think so, isn't it more hygenic anyway?


Can't you get a form of cancer in that....er, area

(most awkward thread EVER)

It's not been proven either way I don't think, I've heard as long as uncircemsized men... erm... clean... that... there's nothing better about it.

This is really odd, I never knew it was standard in america.

Yes. My father informed me later that if not for it being traditional Jewish practice, he wouldn't have had it done.

Because afterwards we can still feel pleasure, and amnesty international says so.

Hell, it appears that, as the foreskin retracts, we don't feel any less pleasure. And even if we did, it'd increase our sexual stamina, thus allowing our partner to feel more pleasure, and us to feel the same amount of pleasure, albeit over a longer period.

i think so, isn't it more hygenic anyway?


Can't you get a form of cancer in that....er, area

(most awkward thread EVER)

No, it gives no health benfits, but take away one of the most sensitive parts of you penis so you will not enyoy sex as much.

The reason tha it got so popular in the US was that it stopped boys from toching themselfs down there when they were children.

Because afterwards we can still feel pleasure, and amnesty international says so.

So? Both are mutilating a perfectly healthy organ by cutting parts off.

This is really odd, I never knew it was standard in america.

Neither did I. Just thought it was standard for teh Jewish. It's not generally the done thing in the UK (thank god - no-one's taking a knife to that area!!!!). Plus having it removed desensitizes the area slightly so why lord why??????:confused:

Circumscision is the norm in America. It isn't the norm in the rest of the Western world - quite the opposite, actually.

Why do you call it "female gential mutilation" but not "male genital mutilation"?
Because most female circumcision happens to be very brutal, and has no purpose, other than for making the girl bleed on first intercourse, its very popular among the east coast of africa, in like somalia and that area.


i think so, isn't it more hygenic anyway?


Can't you get a form of cancer in that....er, area

(most awkward thread EVER)
I think if you don't clean it, you have more of a chance of getting cancer and /or other diseases there.

Yeah.

Most porn stars are circumcized, so it kind of gives guys in the US an immediate advantage.

I used to be a porn star...You may remember me as Tommy Salami, in the meat beater, or as Long Dong Silver in ButtPirate of the Carribean. :)

I'm cut, and a lot of Americans are; I don't mind it, I don't see myself as a victim, and I function just fine; and if you don't like it, don't get it done or have it done to your kids. Period.

End of story, quit this "MY UNCIRCUMCISED/CIRCUMCISED PENIS IS BIGGER/BETTER/MAKES WOMEN MOAN MORE/INCREASES MY IQ DEMONSTRABLY" argument.

So? Both are mutilating a perfectly healthy organ by cutting parts off.

But ours still works afterward.

Hell, it appears that, as the foreskin retracts, we don't feel any less pleasure. And even if we did, it'd increase our sexual stamina, thus allowing our partner to feel more pleasure, and us to feel the same amount of pleasure, albeit over a longer period.
I never said it was better. I wasn't old enough to decide, the decision was done for me.

Most Americans have it done, not for any real religious or health reason but just so the doctor can make a few extra bucks.

I do believe circumcising infants is free in the U.S. And it's done for health reasons.

I couldn't be more circumcised if I tried. :)

No, it gives no health benfits, but take away one of the most sensitive parts of you penis so you will not enyoy sex as much.

The reason tha it got so popular in the US was that it stopped boys from toching themselfs down there when they were children.

oh, goody thank you medical establishment for saving me from my sinful self. *shakes fist*

Plus having it removed desensitizes the area slightly so why lord why??????:confused:

Dunno. I'm not planning on having kids for awhile so I haven't read up on it. I can't very well get it reversed, so there's no point.

HELL NO! and thankful. ;)

oh, wait, were you asking guys?

I'm guessing you never saw the documentary that I saw.. :eek:

I'm circumcised.

I have a pretty penis, not a slug.

I never said it was better. I wasn't old enough to decide, the decision was done for me.

I didn't say that you said that. I was supporting your argument.

I do believe circumcising infants is free in the U.S. And it's done for health reasons.

Nothing is free, it would be charged to the insurance company right?
Also what health reasons?

I didn't say that you said that. I was supporting your argument.

ah, ok

Wait... I still touched myself, quite a bit actually...

In case some of you don't have signatures on ...

http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/

Learn.

My brother was happy after he was circumsized, was still young though and a virgin. My dad on the other hand .. well I've posted on here about that before. He shouldn've let that doctor talk him into it after he had lived with an intact penis for over 40 years with no problems. ugh.

The reason tha it got so popular in the US was that it stopped boys from toching themselfs down there when they were children.

If that was the purpose, I think it was a miserable failure.

I used to be a porn star...You may remember me as Tommy Salami, in the meat beater, or as Long Dong Silver in ButtPirate of the Carribean. :)

Two legendary films, sixteen legendary inches...

And here's another question: Do European pornstars give their measurements in inches or centimeters? Because 16 cm sounds a lot more impressive than 6''

oh, goody thank you medical establishment for saving me from my sinful self. *shakes fist*

Don't worry, he's just making it up. The foreskin does have lots of nerves, but it retracts during sex, meaning that the nerves in the foreskin are not stimulated. Plus, not all nerves are the same.

I'm guessing you never saw the documentary that I saw.. :eek:

I'm circumcised.

I have a pretty penis, not a slug.

looks like a dog's.....except not x-mas-tree-light-esque

Nothing is free, it would be charged to the insurance company right?
Also what health reasons?

No, it's part of the cost of childbirth. You pay the same whether or not the infant is circumcised, IIRC.

The health reasons mostly relate to cancer, and the fact that the foreskin is about as useful as the appendix, except that it can be more safely removed.

Don't worry, he's just making it up. The foreskin does have lots of nerves, but it retracts during sex, meaning that the nerves in the foreskin are not stimulated. Plus, not all nerves are the same.

and it can get cancer, my grandpa had to get circumcized when he was 67 because it became cancerous.

its not as common as it used to be in the US. it is still over 50% of newborn boys though. the most common reason for it is to match the status of the father's penis.

No, this is not at all common in Sweden. I know of noone who is circumcised. Sounds disgusting and like a mutilation and breach of a child's rights to me.

What does circumsized? Like a food?

No, this is not at all common in Sweden. I know of noone who is circumcised. Sounds disgusting and like a mutilation and breach of a child's rights to me.


It is. Usually done for traditional .. ritual ..religous reasons.. that cleanliness crap is load of BS. It's actually the exact opposite. Foreskin is not a deformity .. if anything being born without the foreskin would be a deformity. I'm against it. If I ever have a son.. the snippers won't get their hands on him.

What does circumsized? Like a food?

*cough*

oh boy......AWKWARD

i pray for sarcasm...PLEASE be sarcasm

In england, some people use it as an insult to call someone circumcised.

Hmm... I find that a little odd; London has large Jewish and Muslim communities, doesn't it?

Well, i guess this mostly applies to men. But I supposed if you are a woman and were circumcised(female genital mutilation), then you can vote on the poll too. I just want to see the ratio of men that are circumcised compared to those that are not. This came about yesterday, when somehow i found out that a friend of mine, is not circumcised. Which, i am, and i thought a lot of people are, but apparently there are more that are not. So i just wanna see what it is here on NS.

Yes, I am male, yes I had the ordeal, but I was only three days old at the time so I didn't have a choice. Interesting that you only refer to female circumcision as gential mutilation since the rise of male circumcisions in the twentieth century were to limit masturbation. (Source (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm))

I wasn't going to let my son get circumcised, but the doctor came to do it while I was at work checking out on baby leave and my wife signed the consent form. Needless to say, I was upset.

Go to circumcision.org (http://www.circumcision.org/) and you'll see why I'm a convert to anti-circumcision.

It is. Usually done for traditional .. ritual ..religous reasons.. that cleanliness crap is load of BS. It's actually the exact opposite. Foreskin is not a deformity .. if anything being born without the foreskin would be a deformity. I'm against it. If I ever have a son.. the snippers won't get their hands on him.

I resent that, MY TOOL IS NOT A DEFORMITY!

I demand as a circumsizee equal rights whos with me!?

I resent that, MY TOOL IS NOT A DEFORMITY!

I demand as a circumsizee equal rights whos with me!?

Face it, theres a bit of your dick missing

Yes, I am male, yes I had the ordeal, but I was only three days old at the time so I didn't have a choice. Interesting that you only refer to female circumcision as gential mutilation since the rise of male circumcisions in the twentieth century were to limit masturbation. (Source (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm))

What are you talking about- "circumcision in the twenty-first century is mostly to limit mastrubation"? How is it supposed to limit that? (If so, it's not working...)

I resent that, MY TOOL IS NOT A DEFORMITY!

I demand as a circumsizee equal rights whos with me!?

I am!

I'm cut, and a lot of Americans are; I don't mind it, I don't see myself as a victim, and I function just fine; and if you don't like it, don't get it done or have it done to your kids. Period.

End of story, quit this "MY UNCIRCUMCISED/CIRCUMCISED PENIS IS BIGGER/BETTER/MAKES WOMEN MOAN MORE/INCREASES MY IQ DEMONSTRABLY" argument.

Dude, no-one's even having that arguement:p

Didn't some guy post a thread on this forum, crying his eyes out about how circumcision was a horific crime against humanity and is on par with hitler or something.

I laughed so much then.

Yes, I am male, yes I had the ordeal, but I was only three days old at the time so I didn't have a choice. Interesting that you only refer to female circumcision as gential mutilation since the rise of male circumcisions in the twentieth century were to limit masturbation. (Source (http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm))

I wasn't going to let my son get circumcised, but the doctor came to do it while I was at work checking out on baby leave and my wife signed the consent form. Needless to say, I was upset.

Go to circumcision.org (http://www.circumcision.org/) and you'll see why I'm a convert to anti-circumcision.

whoa you never discussed it with your wife and doctor beforehand? did you know your wife was in favor of it?

SO....

if you have another son will you circumsize him so he will look like his brother and you?

I have to admit, if it is still common when I have a kid, I won't resist if my wife wants him snipped.

I've heard people saying (on this forum) that circumcision is commonplace in America, and, to be honest, I'm kind of wondering where. Where I'm from, it seems people don't even fully understand what it is; in fact, some of the more ignorant people seem to think that circumcision is phsyical emasculation. (Hence why I have never had a conversation like this in public.) Now, I'm not sure about mosques, but, in this region, there seems to be about one synogogue per million people. I may sound like I'm from some farming state with no minorities, I'm actually from the fifth largest urban area in America. So, are you sure it's commonplace in America, or is it just that most of the people who came on this thread and answered the pole have been circumcised?

Uncircumsised... and really, really, really REALLY glad about it. I mean, REALLY!

Never tried an uncircumsised cock, though. I have to admit I'd be curious if there was any noticeable difference

Face it, theres a bit of your dick missing

It was so big, they had to cut it down so girls would believe us.

Uncircumsised... and really, really, really REALLY glad about it. I mean, REALLY!

Never tried an uncircumsised cock, though. I have to admit I'd be curious if there was any noticeable difference

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive.

(Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive.

(Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)

So... we'll last longer?

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive.

(Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)

Sounds like a lot more work...

whoa you never discussed it with your wife and doctor beforehand? did you know your wife was in favor of it?

SO....

if you have another son will you circumsize him so he will look like his brother and you?

I discussed it with my wife -- I knew she was in favor and I was not. I wanted to discuss it with the doctor, but I never got the chance.

If I can help it, no future sons will be cicumcized.

So... we'll last longer?

Seeing as you're les responsive and less sensitive, it does sound like you might have trouble keeping it up in the first place.

So... we'll last longer?

According to studies, yes. Also according to studies, there isn't a noticable difference between the feelings of pleasure, mainly because the foreskin retracts during sex and thus is not stimulated.

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive.

(Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)

You've got to be kidding! Less sensative? I wear my underwear inside-out, because otherwise the seams hurt too much. If I were any more sensative, I'd be a nudist!

So... we'll last longer?

Yes, you do last longer, but as a trade off you get less pleasure, and you're not as sensitive. In other words, circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.

You've got to be kidding! Less sensative? I wear my underwear inside-out, because otherwise the seams hurt too much. If I were any more sensative, I'd be a nudist!

Sensitive to sexual pleasure. Dur.

I'm guessing you never saw the documentary that I saw.. :eek:
I saw one about female circumcision, it just made me hurt.......eww...


I'm circumcised.

I have a pretty penis, not a slug.
I often wonder if I have a preference because I have been "exposed" (as it were) to one type more than the other. :confused:

Yes, you do last longer, but as a trade off you get less pleasure, and you're not as sensitive. In other words, circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.
I disagree. ;)

Circumscision is the norm in America. It isn't the norm in the rest of the Western world - quite the opposite, actually.

Why do you call it "female gential mutilation" but not "male genital mutilation"?

I call it "male genital mutilation", which is why my son is not circumcised.

Yes, you do last longer, but as a trade off you get less pleasure, and you're not as sensitive. In other words, circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.

Why do people always say this? Do they not understand that the foreskin retracts during sex or something?

Seeing as you're les responsive and less sensitive, it does sound like you might have trouble keeping it up in the first place.

um, no

What are you talking about- "circumcision in the twenty-first century is mostly to limit mastrubation"? How is it supposed to limit that? (If so, it's not working...)

Source (http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm):


"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is 'against nature,' but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that God knows best how to make little boys. --R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1935;2:764.

"Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children." --Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.

Sensitive to sexual pleasure. Dur.

I don't think any nerves suddenly shut off when a person becomes "active."

This came about yesterday, when somehow i found out that a friend of mine, is not circumcised.

Congradulations, you finally found the men's locker room. :eek:

Why do people always say this? Do they not understand that the foreskin retracts during sex or something?

Do you not understand that the foreskin retracting has nothing to do with the reasons why a circumsized penis is less sensitive? It's less sensitive because the lack of a foreskin results in the hardening of the skin around the cut point, especially directly behind the head - y'know, the part where there's a zillion nerve endings. Thicker skin = less sensitivity. It's not rocket science. An uncircumsized penis doesn't have thickened skin because the foreskin provides a barrier.

I imagine you won't get the proportion right with the poll here, since I assume the thread is more likely to attract a circumcised person than not.

Anyway, circumcised. At the age of 20, for a rather common medicinal reason.

I am... sorry, I don't look to see if others around me are tho.

No need to apologize, a lot of people wear blinders in the locker room. :eek:

Yes, you do last longer, but as a trade off you get less pleasure, and you're not as sensitive. In other words, circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.

Well, I get that, but aren't women (No offence but they are... how should I put this... my target demographic) more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?

I've heard people saying (on this forum) that circumcision is commonplace in America, and, to be honest, I'm kind of wondering where. Where I'm from, it seems people don't even fully understand what it is; in fact, some of the more ignorant people seem to think that circumcision is phsyical emasculation. (Hence why I have never had a conversation like this in public.) Now, I'm not sure about mosques, but, in this region, there seems to be about one synogogue per million people. I may sound like I'm from some farming state with no minorities, I'm actually from the fifth largest urban area in America. So, are you sure it's commonplace in America, or is it just that most of the people who came on this thread and answered the pole have been circumcised?

yes a majority of male newborns in the US are circumsized. it peaked at 90% in 1964 and is still well over 50% today

this site has a nice graph....

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

Seeing as you're les responsive and less sensitive, it does sound like you might have trouble keeping it up in the first place.

no, they last longer. ;) (in general, I think, not like actually every single one of them)

Well, I get that, but aren't women (No offence but they are... how should I put this... my target demographic) more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?

Maybe, but isn't that being rather charitable? Reducing the male's pleasure for the sake of the female?

Source (http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm):
I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised.

Oh, of course, he's right. ;)

...is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children." --Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.

Actually, babies can't really feel it. Apparently, they cry for about three minutes, and then stop, going back to the usual infantiule scheme of sleeping and playing in a matter of a couple of minutes. Nerves are not very sensative when you are only eight days old.

yes a majority of male newborns in the US are circumsized. it peaked at 90% in 1964 and is still well over 50% today

this site has a nice graph....

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

I don't trust any site that claims that a reason not to circumcise children is that Osama bin Laden is circumcised.

Maybe, but isn't that being rather charitable? Reducing the male's pleasure for the sake of the female?

If they last longer, they'll still get the same amount of pleasure, just over a longer period of time.

Do you not understand that the foreskin retracting has nothing to do with the reasons why a circumsized penis is less sensitive? It's less sensitive because the lack of a foreskin results in the hardening of the skin around the cut point, especially directly behind the head - y'know, the part where there's a zillion nerve endings. Thicker skin = less sensitivity. It's not rocket science. An uncircumsized penis doesn't have thickened skin because the foreskin provides a barrier.
Thank you, lets me save my breath. :)

Maybe, but isn't that being rather charitable? Reducing the male's pleasure for the sake of the female?

Maybe, but I'm trying to look on the sunny side. That and, if she's happy, I'm more likely to get laid. :p

I don't trust any site that claims that a reason not to circumcise children is that Osama bin Laden is circumcised.

Read mine then.. there is no graph .. but it states the era in which it was so common it was just automatically done .. with no consent.

http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/ Very Informative site page..

*wants everyone to read this damn site*

Well, I get that, but aren't women (No offence but they are... how should I put this... my target demographic) more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?

So? I would care.......if I were a woman!

BTW, when I said i found out about my friend, it meant that it came up in conversation, when i was talking to him abouth jewish laws and traditions.

yes a majority of male newborns in the US are circumsized. it peaked at 90% in 1964 and is still well over 50% today

this site has a nice graph....

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

Really? Being from the West (which granted had the lowest statistics of people being circumcised (around thirty-three percent, I think), I (outside the Jewish community) know very few people who are cimcumcised.

If they last longer, they'll still get the same amount of pleasure, just over a longer period of time.

From the feedback I've recieved from gay circumsized partners, they almost always envy their uncircumsized partner's extra sensitivity. I'd think they probably have the most experience dealing with both, no?

Never tried an uncircumsised cock, though. I have to admit I'd be curious if there was any noticeable difference
I had exactly one boyfriend who was circumsized (it's usually not done here, he only had to have it done for some medical reason, I forget).
And the only real differences I noticed were that

1) a handjob works a little differently
2) there's a more feelable ridge
3) the head is slightly less sensitive - but nowhere near this:

Seeing as you're les responsive and less sensitive, it does sound like you might have trouble keeping it up in the first place.
Yes, you do last longer, but as a trade off you get less pleasure, and you're not as sensitive. In other words, circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.

Okay, I can only extrapolate from one guy, but seriously - I have a hard time believing that all circumsized men are "crap to play with in bed" and can't keep it up. :rolleyes:

I had exactly one boyfriend who was circumsized (it's usually not done here, he only had to have it done for some medical reason, I forget).
And the only real differences I noticed were that

1) a handjob works a little differently
2) there's a more feelable ridge
3) the head is slightly less sensitive

What do you mean, "a handjob works differently?" Do you have an example?

I don't trust any site that claims that a reason not to circumcise children is that Osama bin Laden is circumcised.

then look it up yourself.

its not hard to find.

Okay, I can only extrapolate from one guy, but seriously - I have a hard time believing that all circumsized men are "crap to play with in bed" and can't keep it up. :rolleyes:

In some cases it means a prolonged time from erection to climax rather than inability to stay erect. *nods*

What do you mean, "a handjob works differently?" Do you have an example?

For one, you need lots of lube.

I had exactly one boyfriend who was circumsized (it's usually not done here, he only had to have it done for some medical reason, I forget).
And the only real differences I noticed were that

2) there's a more feelable ridge

Now, I hate to be so sick-minded, but: do ladies like that?

What do you mean, "a handjob works differently?" Do you have an example?

yes, perhaps one that can be shown on me :D

akward thread
*walkes with hands between legs

really? So, it is an oddity then, that I am?

in britian its certainly an oddity. i hear in america its odd not to have it done though...

in britian its certainly an oddity. i hear in america its odd not to have it done though...

What about London. Doesn't it have large Jewish and Muslim communities?

What about London. Doesn't it have large Jewish and Muslim communities?

If you don't know about London, that's allright; I wouldn't expect you to have gone around asking people... or worse.

It's practically standard here.

I'm American and I'm not circumcised. And all of those I've asked say that they aren't.

What about London. Doesn't it have large Jewish and Muslim communities?

quite probably, but the vast majority of most of british society (which comprises still the vast majority of the population across the country - though, yes, probably a lower percent in the larger urban areas) still don't circumcise.



oh and in reference to the question, i'm not :) and i quite like it that way, i think, though it does sometimes cause... difficulties :(

Yep. I think they stopped doing a lot of things to babies after they did them to me. Stopped using tongs, circumcising, started insisting on child seats in cars (my parents would plop me down on the folded top of my dad's TR-3 (http://www.pgallery.net/photo-lib/image/large/tr3-68851.jpeg) (that's not my dads, it's just for if you don't know what a TR-3 is)...after me it was all "Baby on Board" signs and helmet laws on bicycles. Me and those born around when I was where the last generation of children raised in the wild...

(with a portion of our penis' cut off...)

Seems like there's a bunch of people dead-set against circumcision, and a bunch of guys circumcised soon after birth and grown for it. Being circumcised at adult age, as I stated in a previous post, I guess I may have some insight, to hopefully see beyond exaggeration and errors on both sides...

Let's see, where should I begin..

First of all, I'm against circumcision of male children, but as it's really, in my honest opinion, such a big thing I accept it as a cultural practice where it's done. Assuming it's performed in a hygienic environment and not with rusty tools in some shed built of dung. I don't view of it as genital mutilation at all. Hell, I don't feel the least bit mutilated.

As for female genital mutil... sorry, circumcision. That's exactly what it is - mutilation. There's no excuse for female circumcision. From what I know it makes sex a painful and horrifying experience for them for the rest of their lives. It's been previously described as "stuffing a sharp piece of something down there and ripping everything that's soft out of there".

Health effects of male circumcision? I'm not the one to talk about cancer or anything, so I won't. As for cleanliness, a circumcised penis is slightly easier to keep clean, but I wouldn't call it a major difference. If you're a lazy, filthy bugger and don't bathe too often, you're more likely to keep yourself from developing anything nasty if you're circumcised. For the (hopefully) majority of us that know about personal hygiene there isn't much of a difference.

There are certain minor medical reasons that may call for circumcision, or in some cases a smaller cut will do. Tight foreskin, for one. I guess you could see it as an argument for child circumcision - to save a child from the noticing at 15 or 16 that he isn't quite like the rest, that an erection can hurt like hell, or the foreskin may be too tight for the tip to come out at all. If that was you, wouldn't you rather get circumcised than have sex painful for the rest of your life, plus carry a risk of infection due to some fluids possibly remaining under the foreskin?

As for the sensitivity and sex side of it, it's already been very well put by The Mindset, but I'll repeat the main point - with a circumcised penis, the tip of the penis gets constant friction from clothing and everything, thus making it less sensitive, indeed often making a man last longer.

I wouldn't mind if this put an end to the bickering here :P

For some background information, circumcision is everything but common here, but medical reasons that make it advisable at some point of your age are surprisingly common.

It was definitely an odd idea to be just turning 20 and having yourself circumcised. Of course I was worried. Sure I wished it wasn't necessary. But afterwards.. well, can't say it was horrible. And for people wondering about healing... I was adviced not to have sex for a week after the operation, and to use a condom always for the next few weeks.

In some cases it means a prolonged time from erection to climax rather than inability to stay erect. *nods* Yeah, if any, that would be the logical result of diminished sensitivity.

What do you mean, "a handjob works differently?" Do you have an example? Erm... *tries to stay PG13* Uncircumsized, the skin moves with the hand; circumsized, the hand moves over the skin. Makes a difference for example in the strength of the grip, so to say. Or, I guess, you could just do this:
For one, you need lots of lube. Never did that, though. Works just fine without.

Now, I hate to be so sick-minded, but: do ladies like that? Erm... That's not "sick-minded", that's a rather reasonable question. I think that generally ladies might like that. But I'm totally not saying that makes circumsized better than uncircumsized. Both have pros and cons, and both are, well, really nice. *nods* :D
So, basically - who the hell cares? :D

The reason tha it got so popular in the US was that it stopped boys from toching themselfs down there when they were children.

err, no it didn't. boys are boys. curiosity is curiosity. sensation is sensation.

;)

err, no it didn't. boys are boys. curiosity is curiosity. sensation is sensation.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I flog my log just like any other guy regardless of whether he's circumcized or not.

oh and in reference to the question, i'm not :) and i quite like it that way, i think, though it does sometimes cause... difficulties :(

What sort of diffuiculties?

Now, I hate to be so sick-minded, but: do ladies like that?

ladies like what you have as long as you know how to use it.

Yes, my ten foot cock was recently circumsized for health issues.....it gets a little hard to clean those fine places with that beast.

;)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I flog my log just like any other guy regardless of whether he's circumcized or not.

"flog my log"- That's a very interesting expression...

ladies like what you have as long as you know how to use it.
^ It's the truth. *nod*

"flog my log"- That's a very interesting expression...

It rhymes...and is rather accurate.

akward thread
*walkes with hands between legs*

I won't ask why...

Yes, my ten foot cock was recently circumsized for health issues.....it gets a little hard to clean those fine places with that beast.

;)

Wasn't there a famous Disney quote of, "Kill the beast!" formalizing, once again, Disney's views on this sort of thing.

It rhymes...and is rather accurate.

Yeah... if you're a masochist.

err, no it didn't. boys are boys. curiosity is curiosity. sensation is sensation.

;)

yeah well sometimes theory is different from reality.

it didnt work but that is why it gained in popularity.

Wasn't there a famous Disney quote of, "Kill the beast!" formalizing, once again, Disney's views on this sort of thing.



NO! Don't kill my ten footer! That thing has history!

;)

Yeah... if you're a masochist.

Maybe that's how the penis sees it...you know, a giant Hand of God coming down on top of it and repeatedly plunging it in to a 98 degree cocoon of darkness.

yeah well sometimes theory is different from reality.

it didnt work but that is why it gained in popularity.

Why is mastrubation supposed to be viewed as something so evil? For something to be classified as evil, you would that that at least two-thirds or so of the population would have to agree, but half of the population are men, so... how did that happen? Are they just going along, so people will think they are decent and clean-minded, (I, admittedly, have been pertending to most people to not be interested in sex in the interest of decency and gentlemanly behavior. However, I am a man, so we all know my real stance on this sort of thing...) or do they actually feel that mastrubation is evil? I judt don't understand. Do you?

ladies like what you have
Yay...
as long as you know how to use it.
d'oh!

What sort of diffuiculties?

this kind of difficulty

Tight foreskin, for one. I guess you could see it as an argument for child circumcision - to save a child from the noticing at 15 or 16 that he isn't quite like the rest, that an erection can hurt like hell, or the foreskin may be too tight for the tip to come out at all. If that was you, wouldn't you rather get circumcised than have sex painful for the rest of your life, plus carry a risk of infection due to some fluids possibly remaining under the foreskin?



it can be painful sometimes, especially sex without a condom. that said, i'm kinda 'thick' so to speak, so that generally doesn't help matters :-S
after sex getting the foreskin back to where it should be can also be a bit tortuous. but most of the time its fine though (esp with condom)

The great satirist, Tom Lehrer had somethings to say about this at a 1965 concert in San Francisco. Apparently, the Supreme Court must have been facing an issue at the time involving censorship of innapropriate material. As such, the famous Harvard mathematics lecturer gone world-renoun satirist wrote his famous song "Smut." Here is what he had to say:



"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!"

this kind of difficulty




it can be painful sometimes, especially sex without a condom. that said, i'm kinda 'thick' so to speak, so that generally doesn't help matters :-S
after sex getting the foreskin back to where it should be can also be a bit tortuous. but most of the time its fine though (esp with condom)

Don't worry, King Louis XVI had the same problem. Hence why he didn't have sex until seven years after his marriage.

It would appear that this thread has died. (If I'm wrong, please do quickly tell me so.) In the mean time, I seem to be writing to myself. (Oh well, nothing out of the ordinary...) If anyone is still there, please do say somthing or I'll leave (Or does this mean I've just ensured silence?). Oh, anyway...

Well, i guess this mostly applies to men. But I supposed if you are a woman and were circumcised(female genital mutilation), then you can vote on the poll too. I just want to see the ratio of men that are circumcised compared to those that are not. This came about yesterday, when somehow i found out that a friend of mine, is not circumcised. Which, i am, and i thought a lot of people are, but apparently there are more that are not. So i just wanna see what it is here on NS.

Noone here is. Or pretty much noone in Europe. I pity the "cut" folk. Foreskin is one of the most "sensitive" parts down there, increasing woohoo...

Noone here is. Or pretty much noone in Europe. I pity the "cut" folk. Foreskin is one of the most "sensitive" parts down there, increasing woohoo...

How odd. I actually agree with you on something!

As for the topic question... No, I'm not circumcised. And yes, I'm an American.

it can be painful sometimes, especially sex without a condom. that said, i'm kinda 'thick' so to speak, so that generally doesn't help matters :-S
after sex getting the foreskin back to where it should be can also be a bit tortuous. but most of the time its fine though (esp with condom)
I just remembered why that boyfriend way back when had to get his circumcision...
Ouch. :( But, um, shouldn't that be fixable relatively easily by a doctor? I mean, better than a lifetime of hurty sex, I would think?

Noone here is. Or pretty much noone in Europe. I pity the "cut" folk. Foreskin is one of the most "sensitive" parts down there, increasing woohoo...

Actually, the foreskin itself has no effect on sex.

Actually, the foreskin itself has no effect on sex.

Actually, the foreskin contains glands that secrete a mucous that minimises friction. Look it up.

Actually, the foreskin contains glands that secrete a mucous that minimises friction. Look it up.

Well I can give you the comments of a friend who had his cut at 25 :eek:

He said it's highly overated.

Thankfully my parents don't believe in causing unneccessary harm to children, so I'm not.

Every guy I've done is though - so I've always felt weird and embarrassed by my member. One of my current partners loves it though - he appreciates the extra sensitivity I have down there :fluffle:

Actually, the foreskin contains glands that secrete a mucous that minimises friction. Look it up.

Really? Are you sure? Have you ever experienced this yourself? What's your formal source?

well its not part of my day to day conversations with my friends and i really cant say that i have had a look, so i dont know if my friends are or not.

Really? Are you sure? Have you ever experienced this yourself? What's your formal source?

He's right, circumcised guys rely much more on her lube, foreplay is more important.

How odd. I actually agree with you on something!

As for the topic question... No, I'm not circumcised. And yes, I'm an American.

If you agree with me it means, you've crossed to the dark side http://www.coolsmilies.net/angry/devil2.gif

Fech, no. I can't understand how you could do that to your child without the excuse of religion.

Actually, the foreskin itself has no effect on sex.

The foreskin is more sensitive then the "red" area...So you can feel more with a uc dick, as far as I know, although I couldnt compare 2 experiences...

I just remembered why that boyfriend way back when had to get his circumcision...
Ouch. :( But, um, shouldn't that be fixable relatively easily by a doctor? I mean, better than a lifetime of hurty sex, I would think?

for the most part its fine really, and its not that much of a problem. can wash and stuff no probs, and with condom its ok. its just without things have to go very slow for a while :P
not really problematic enough to bother a doctor with, methinks... and i don't particularly want a circumcision

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive.

(Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)

Well, also speaking from the perspective of a sexually active gay man, I can't disagree with you more. I prefer circumcised men as I find them to be more responsive in bed. Not to mention I find them more astheticaly pleasing. And no matter how clean they are, uncircumcised men tend to have an off (almost sour) taste.

Also, research doesn't back up your claim. The results have been mixed at best.

http://sexuality.about.com/od/malesexualhealth/a/sexcircumcised2.htm

Research offers no concrete answers to this question. Consider some findings from several studies comparing circumcised and uncircumcised men on measures of sexual pleasure and satisfaction:

* In the only national probability sample in the U.S. researchers found that circumcised men were less likely to experience sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men.
* In a poll conducted by an anti-circumcision organization (whose methods for recruiting subjects were not reported), 61% of circumcised men reported decreased sensation resulting in sexual dysfunction.
* In another survey of women (who were recruited through an anti-circumcision newsletter) reports vary widely. Women who prefer circumcised partners claim that uncircumcised partners were more likely to premature ejaculate, yet the researchers state that overall women found circumcised partners more likely to premature ejaculate. For some reason the researchers never reveal the overall preference of the entire sample of 139 women for circumcised or uncircumcised men.
* Yet in another study, 71% of women preferred circumcised penises to uncircumcised ones for engaging in sexual behaviors.
* Two articles published in the same issue of The Journal of Urology that both measured adult men before and after circumcision on sexual ratings arrived at very different results, with one study finding no reduction in satisfaction with erections, and the other study finding a significant reduction in satisfaction with erections after circumcision. Neither study found an overall change in sexual satisfaction after adult circumcision

In the end, this question is a little bit academic (and more than a little political). Unless you are an adult male who has been circumcised after you became sexually active, there is no true point of comparison for you to make. As far as your partner is concerned, it is true that partners prefer different penises for all sorts of reasons, including size, shape, and circumcised or uncircumcised. It’s important to know that there are people with both preferences, and you don’t need to feel lacking, if your lacking a foreskin (nor do you need to feel strange if you have one, and are living amongst people who don’t).

Well, i guess this mostly applies to men. But I supposed if you are a woman and were circumcised(female genital mutilation), then you can vote on the poll too. I just want to see the ratio of men that are circumcised compared to those that are not. This came about yesterday, when somehow i found out that a friend of mine, is not circumcised. Which, i am, and i thought a lot of people are, but apparently there are more that are not. So i just wanna see what it is here on NS.

I also thought most people were circumcised.

No, and I don't know a single person who is.

Not very standard at all in the UK, you only really get it here for religious reasons.

Thank god no.

The Pros and Cons
On the plus side, studies indicate that circumcised infants are less likely to contract a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. About one out of every 1,000 circumcised boys has a UTI in the first year, whereas the rate is one in 100 (at most) for uncircumcised infants.

Circumcised men may also be at lower risk for penile cancer, although the disease is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. Although some studies indicate that the procedure might offer an additional line of defense against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly HIV, the results of studies in this area are conflicting and difficult to interpret.

It's also easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5). However, some uncircumcised boys can end up with infected foreskins as the result of poor hygiene.

Some people also claim that circumcision either lessens or heightens the sensitivity of the tip of the penis, decreasing or increasing sexual pleasure later in life. But neither of these subjective findings has been proven to be true.

Although circumcision appears to have some medical benefits, it also carries potential risks - as does any surgical procedure. These risks are small, but you should be aware of both the possible advantages and the problems that can be associated with the procedure before you make your decision. Complications of newborn circumcision are uncommon, occurring in between 0.2% to 3% of cases. Of these, the most frequent are minor bleeding and local infection, both of which can be easily treated by your child's doctor.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/kidshealth/20060828/hl_kidshealth/circumcision)

It looks like there are more potential benefits than there are liabilities to the procedure, unlike removing wisdom teeth before there is a problem, but it also looks like this is a very emotionally charged topic ...

This thread is about genitalia, yet it has managed to stay on topic for ten pages. A new General record.

This thread is about genitalia, yet it has managed to stay on topic for ten pages. A new General record.

it stayed on topic BECAUSE it's about Genitalia. :D

I pity the "cut" folk.

Save your pity for all the White Nordic children who are never gonna be born thanks to the evil liberal attitudes of White Nordic Women.

The foreskin is more sensitive then the "red" area...So you can feel more with a uc dick, as far as I know, although I couldnt compare 2 experiences...

sob sob sob for me. You know, I don't care. What's done is done. At least I'm not a castrato.

yes of course I am. I'm surprised its not very common as far as I can tell from the responses.

Hell, it appears that, as the foreskin retracts, we don't feel any less pleasure. And even if we did, it'd increase our sexual stamina, thus allowing our partner to feel more pleasure, and us to feel the same amount of pleasure, albeit over a longer period.

Here here - and as you may infer, yes, I am.

yes of course I am. I'm surprised its not very common as far as I can tell from the responses.

It's fairly common in the US.

http://www.circs.org/reviews/rates/usa.html

"In the United States of America today, approximately 65% of newborn males are circumcised, and approximately 77% of the male population overall have been circumcised."

Historic circumcision rates in the US
Year__ % Circumcised
1932__ 30
1935__ 62.5
1938__ 55
1941__ 65
1944__ 72.5
1947__ 77
1950__ 80
1953__ 85
1956__ 85
1959__ 80
1962__ 85
1965__ 90
1968__ 80
1971__ 82.5
1974__ 77.5

As far as the rest of the world goes one estimate has between 30% and 40% of the worlds male population as circumcised.

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

err, no it didn't. boys are boys. curiosity is curiosity. sensation is sensation.

;)

Yes. And before they thought that mercury was good for your health.

I said that they did beacouse they thought they could reduce kids from touching themself, I didn't mean to imply that it worked ;)

this definitely wins the

Minoriteeburg Achievement Award for Best Novelty Thread Title of the Day.


..and a big shout out to all the hoodies out there. I myself am not among them.

I just remembered why that boyfriend way back when had to get his circumcision...
Ouch. :( But, um, shouldn't that be fixable relatively easily by a doctor? I mean, better than a lifetime of hurty sex, I would think?

Yes, by circumcision if not else.

for the most part its fine really, and its not that much of a problem. can wash and stuff no probs, and with condom its ok. its just without things have to go very slow for a while :P
not really problematic enough to bother a doctor with, methinks... and i don't particularly want a circumcision

A circumcision shouldn't be necessary if the foreskin is just tight but not so tight that it won't retract at all. In that case all they need to do is make a small cut to loosen the foreskin a bit... yes, it will look somewhat different, but nothing dramatic. It probably wouldn't hurt to ask a doctor - might make your life a bit easier without too much hassle.

But of course, as you said, if it gives you no real trouble, why bother. Just trying to say it might be worth considering, to ask a doctor :)

It's not been proven either way I don't think, I've heard as long as uncircemsized men... erm... clean... that... there's nothing better about it.
Yeah, in Health class, the teacher said something like, "Males who are uncircumcised generally need to practice a little extra hygiene."
To which my friend replied, " 'Practice'? What the f***? It's not a sport, people."

I am, but I think it'd be interesting to have a foreskin... just makes things more interesting:D
:eek:

it stayed on topic BECAUSE it's about Genitalia. :D

Yes but it's males talking about male genitalia. ;)

Most Americans have it done, not for any real religious or health reason but just so the doctor can make a few extra bucks.
Don't forget the need for the little Jewish Hats.:)

*Hasn't been snipped.*

[INDENT]
It looks like there are more potential benefits than there are liabilities to the procedure, unlike removing wisdom teeth before there is a problem, but it also looks like this is a very emotionally charged topic ...

It is emotionally charged because, when there is almost no advantage to the process for most people, and a risk (as there is in ANY surgery)... there is still the matter that supposedly civilised people are mutilating the genitals of children.

Think about the issue objectively... our society performs COSMETIC surgery on the sex organs of newborns. Obviously, there is no 'consent' for this mutilation... but the important thing is, we would consider the process barbaric if it was 'somewhere that could be seen'.


"Hey, pointy ears look better... let's all have the ears of our infants clipped into points! Yay!"

It's fairly common in the US.

http://www.circs.org/reviews/rates/usa.html

"In the United States of America today, approximately 65% of newborn males are circumcised, and approximately 77% of the male population overall have been circumcised."

Historic circumcision rates in the US
Year__ % Circumcised
1932__ 30
1935__ 62.5
1938__ 55
1941__ 65
1944__ 72.5
1947__ 77
1950__ 80
1953__ 85
1956__ 85
1959__ 80
1962__ 85
1965__ 90
1968__ 80
1971__ 82.5
1974__ 77.5

As far as the rest of the world goes one estimate has between 30% and 40% of the worlds male population as circumcised.

http://www.circlist.com/rites/rates.html
Now if you combined that list with the number of Jews immigrating to America just before and after WWII...

Uncircumcized and American. I don't have a preference for which I prefer in my partners.

Not me ... and I am not Jewish (despite my NS name).

I'm circumcised. I don't remember the procedure, don't have to deal with extra cleaning, and sex still feels good.

I don't see it as cruel, something that should not be done or something that should be done. If the parents want it, then its fine.
My sons will be.

I'm circumcised. I don't remember the procedure, don't have to deal with extra cleaning, and sex still feels good.

I don't see it as cruel, something that should not be done or something that should be done. If the parents want it, then its fine.
My sons will be.

If the parents want one of their son's fingers cut off at birth is that fine?

Don't worry, he's just making it up. The foreskin does have lots of nerves, but it retracts during sex, meaning that the nerves in the foreskin are not stimulated. Plus, not all nerves are the same.
Indeed, not all nerves are the same! And here's why: (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/)

Most of your skin has loose nerve ends, which allow a low order of sensibility. The foreskin, on the other hand, has encapsulated nerve endings, the kind which is found on areas of fine tactile sensation; that is, fingertips, lips, transitions between skin and mucous membranes. Which means: circumcision destroys a kind of sexual sensitivity and leaves you with the other (rougher, lesser, incomplete) one.

It's ridiculous when someone says "if I were any more sensitive I wouldn't stand it". It's like this: you can only see in black, white, and shades of grey. And when someone mentions how "colors" make them see things better, all you can imagine is "more brightness".

It's just terrible. Circumcision must be outlawed -- as it already was in Finland (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rules+circumcision+of+four-year-old+boy+illegal/1135220958830).

Male genital manipulation is deplorable. I am very grateful to my parents for not having a doctor slice off part of my reproductive organs at the justification of an extremely minor potential infection.

I prefer men natural. They look better, the texture is nicer and the guy is generally more responsive.

Oh and more responsive doesn't mean "comes quickly", cut men often can come just as quickly as men with natural penises... it seems to be more on experience than anything.

You've got to be kidding! Less sensative? I wear my underwear inside-out, because otherwise the seams hurt too much. If I were any more sensative, I'd be a nudist!
Funny, the foreskin is supposed to protect the head of your penis from things like underwear seams. If you had it, it wouldn't be an issue.

Well, I get that, but aren't women (No offence but they are... how should I put this... my target demographic) more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?
No, we aren't more interested in being humped for an hour by a man who isn't getting anything out of it. Well, maybe some women are, I'm not, I love getting men off as much as I love getting off.

If the parents want one of their son's fingers cut off at birth is that fine?

false analogy.

false analogy.
If parents want to remove their child's perfectly healthy appendix out of fear that it may become infected later on, is that ok?

If parents want to tattoo their infant, is that ok too?

If parents want to remove their child's perfectly healthy appendix out of fear that it may become infected later on, is that ok?yes. definatly.

If parents want to tattoo their infant, is that ok too?well, why would you want to do that? The tattoo would just get stretch marks and look awful...
thats also a pretty poor analogy. I don't know that I would go so far as to say "false", but the appendix one was much better.

false analogy.

Why?

Both are cutting off a perfectly natural body part for no good reason.

There is. Circumsized guys are definately less sensitive, and much less responsive. (Speaking from the perspective of a moderately promiscuous gay man.)...circumsized guys = crap to play with in bed.

Speaking from the perspective of a "moderately promiscuous" bi man, I say you're exaggerating. I'd also say you're playing with the wrong guys. ;)

Sounds like a lot more work...Seeing as you're les responsive and less sensitive, it does sound like you might have trouble keeping it up in the first place.

Work? If it's work for you, you've your own problems. There are a few additional tricks to be done with a foreskin, but I've found most guys don't have a problem with getting off, to say nothing of keeping it up.

Well, I get that, but aren't women...more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?

To a point, and one may or my not last longer (I've noted no difference). This is why I say the above are exaggerating...there are advantages to both.

Maybe, but isn't that being rather charitable? Reducing the male's pleasure for the sake of the female?

Nah, it's using what you've got, with which I am quite happy. I only envy the uncircumsized I know out of curiosity. I have to say, I have much to agree with in what Texamo Land has to say. People like sex for different reasons...pleasures, aesthetics, durations, and so forth.

Why?

Both are cutting off a perfectly natural body part for no good reason.

I can live with absolutly no change in my daily life without my foreskin. A finger changes both the way you have to function, and how many you meet responds. Very few people see my penis, and even fewer within the first few moments of having met them

yes. definatly.

well, why would you want to do that? The tattoo would just get stretch marks and look awful...
thats also a pretty poor analogy. I don't know that I would go so far as to say "false", but the appendix one was much better.

1: Ah, but then, parents could also have their children's tongues removed, and have their mouths coated with a hypo-allergenic material to prevent infection! There's not much you can do to get out of the hole you put yourself in here, Sark...

2: Well, why would a parent want to go borderline insane and mutilate their child, out of fear of "infection"? And I find it funny that you claim "false analogy" just because we say things you don't quite agree with. Well, false and poor, but there's not much difference. Billigerence is billigerence.


So, the way I see it, you're just fine with millions of children being mutilated like this without any choice? Come on, the question was begging to be asked.

yes. definatly.
Why is that definitely ok? Preforming unnecessary surgery on an infant is ok?

well, why would you want to do that? The tattoo would just get stretch marks and look awful...
Yes, and a circumcised cock looks just peachy and has no scars or anything... and we all know removing the foreskin serves such a purpose too...

thats also a pretty poor analogy. I don't know that I would go so far as to say "false", but the appendix one was much better.
It's preforming an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on the child's body without their consent. And yeah, the appendix one was better, afterall, it is possible to undo a tattoo.

I can live with absolutly no change in my daily life without my foreskin. A finger changes both the way you have to function, and how many you meet responds. Very few people see my penis, and even fewer within the first few moments of having met them
Losing one finger as an infant wouldn't change your life, you'd get along fine without it and might even look upon your four digited hand as great, perhaps more efficient than a five digited model... yes, the remaining fingers would take up more tasks, but it wouldn't impact their ability (or your ability) to function. I mean, it's not like the penis stays in its natural state without adapting once the foreskin is removed.

1: Ah, but then, parents could also have their children's tongues removed, and have their mouths coated with a hypo-allergenic material to prevent infection! There's not much you can do to get out of the hole you put yourself in here, Sark...
anyway, there is a HUGE difference between not having a tongue and not having a foreskin. Additionally, I never once said anything about infection and circumcision. Actually, I argue that it has no effect on infection rates.

2: Well, why would a parent want to go borderline insane and mutilate their child, out of fear of "infection"? And I find it funny that you claim "false analogy" just because we say things you don't quite agree with. Well, false and poor, but there's not much difference. Billigerence is billigerence.there is a significant difference between a tattoo and a circumcision, as well as removing a finger and circumcision. I just covered the finger one a post or two back, so I won't do that again.
As for a tattoo, that is something that is highly subject to taste and personal style, as well as being something that generally gets seen. Now, the counterargument is that circumcised vs uncircumcised is a matter of taste, and that is true. But it has been my experience that most men prefer what they are equiped with.
Most circumcisions are not performed (atleast in the US) to prevent infection. Most are done so that the sons penis will look like the fathers. And before you even bother asking, yes. I am fine with that.


So, the way I see it, you're just fine with millions of children being mutilated like this without any choice? Come on, the question was begging to be asked.Yes. I have absolutly zero problem with circumcision. None at all. I have met/talked to very few people who are circumcised and have a problem with it. I have also met/talkled to very few people who aren't circumcised and have a problem with it.

Wow this is still going on? :rolleyes:

Meh.

It's a family decesion and it doesn't matter what the rest of you think.

If they want it natural, fine.
If they don't, fine.

Spend your efforts eliminating female mutilation as there is no value that can be offered for it.

We can argue over the male situation to no end.

It's funny. How many guys think gays are icky and yet are discussing their manhoods and or what should be done with them.

Why is that definitely ok? Preforming unnecessary surgery on an infant is ok?because following the surgery, there will be no issue and no change to the childs life.


Yes, and a circumcised cock looks just peachy and has no scars or anything... and we all know removing the foreskin serves such a purpose too... I have no scars on mine, and personally think my penis looks just fine, and have never had an issue with not having foreskin.


It's preforming an unnecessary cosmetic procedure on the child's body without their consent. And yeah, the appendix one was better, afterall, it is possible to undo a tattoo.as far as a cosmetic fix, there are operations for foreskin, which would fix the sensitivity of the head as well. I see where you're going, but my tattoos have had much more impact in day to day life on me than my lack of foreskin.

Losing one finger as an infant wouldn't change your life, you'd get along fine without it and might even look upon your four digited hand as great, perhaps more efficient than a five digited model... yes, the remaining fingers would take up more tasks, but it wouldn't impact their ability (or your ability) to function. I mean, it's not like the penis stays in its natural state without adapting once the foreskin is removed.depends which finger, really. certain fingers you could get along fine without. Others, not nearly as much.
Additionally, it would change the way people react to you, which can be significant.

Wow this is still going on? :rolleyes:

Meh.

It's a family decesion and it doesn't matter what the rest of you think.

If they want it natural, fine.
If they don't, fine.

Spend your efforts eliminating female mutilation as there is no value that can be offered for it.

We can argue over the male situation to no end.

It's funny. How many guys think gays are icky and yet are discussing their manhoods and or what should be done with them.
you say it perfectly. Appearently, my penis is mutilated according to a large group of people who aren't themselves circumcised

because following the surgery, there will be no issue and no change to the childs life.
Ignoring the scarring, the chance for infection following the surgery et c.

I have no scars on mine, and personally think my penis looks just fine, and have never had an issue with not having foreskin.
Uh, chances are you do have scars on it, they're not like hideous scars, but there's some definite scarring on circumcised penises... I have seen a number of them.

depends which finger, really. certain fingers you could get along fine without. Others, not nearly as much.
Say we're talking about the pinky finger.

Additionally, it would change the way people react to you, which can be significant.
And changing the look of a penis wouldn't change the way people react to you? And one shouldn't get to choose how one's genetalia look in that aspect?

you say it perfectly. Appearently, my penis is mutilated according to a large group of people who aren't themselves circumcised
I'm not saying you're mutilated. I'm just saying that infant circumcision is completely unnecessary and shouldn't be preformed simply because the parents want junior to look like dad, junior should get to deceide for himself when he's old enough.

Ignoring the scarring, the chance for infection following the surgery et c. nothing compared to a tattoo or missing finger, not to mention the scar being covered the majority of the time.
Uh, chances are you do have scars on it, they're not like hideous scars, but there's some definite scarring on circumcised penises... I have seen a number of them. I've seen mine every day of my life. I don't scar anywhere, and know my penis quite well enough to know there aren't scars.


Say we're talking about the pinky finger. still changes the way people react to you, esp children.


And changing the look of a penis wouldn't change the way people react to you? And one shouldn't get to choose how one's genetalia look in that aspect?how many people see your fingers compared to how many see your penis? Yes, someone might react different...however, if you're having sex, chances are either the person actually cares about you or just wants a fuck.

nothing compared to a tattoo or missing finger, not to mention the scar being covered the majority of the time.
And you ignored the risk of infection with such a surgery... an appendecomy can't be without risks, nor is a circumcision for that matter, I encourage you to have a look at what happens when circumcisions aren't done precicely right. If someone can remember the name of that boy who was raised as a girl as a result of a botched circumcision that would be handy...

I've seen mine every day of my life. I don't scar anywhere, and know my penis quite well enough to know there aren't scars.
I've never seen a cut penis without a scar from it. You might not think of it as a scar... you might just think of it as a change of colour...

still changes the way people react to you, esp children.
And if it was the norm to have the pinky finger removed?

how many people see your fingers compared to how many see your penis? Yes, someone might react different...however, if you're having sex, chances are either the person actually cares about you or just wants a fuck.
And sexual situations are also generally more ripe for embarassment than ordinary encounters...

I'm not saying you're mutilated. I'm just saying that infant circumcision is completely unnecessary and shouldn't be preformed simply because the parents want junior to look like dad, junior should get to deceide for himself when he's old enough.

the point is that cercomsision is a religious tradition. it is a choice of the parents when there child is born for many if they did not circomsise their baby boys they would eather be ending thousands of years of tradition or they would be going against their religion. if you don't want to "cut" your kids when you have them then dont. but dont leap down the throats of the people that do chose to circomsise their boys, that are doing waht they think will be best for their kids, and who would know that better thatn the parents. it is still a choice adn it needs to say that way. how would you feel if a Gov't passed a law going the other way saying that boys had to be circomsised? things like this are best left to parents and kept out of the public eye.

the point is that cercomsision is a religious tradition.
In the US it's not done out of religious tradition. It's usually done so teh child will look like his father, or out of some false belief that foreskin makes the penis "unclean" et c. There are some religious circumcisions, but they don't make the majority of them.

it is a choice of the parents when there child is born for many if they did not circomsise their baby boys they would eather be ending thousands of years of tradition or they would be going against their religion.
It's also possible to get circumcised later in life, perhaps when these boys deceide that they want to belong to that faith.

if you don't want to "cut" your kids when you have them then dont.
I won't.

but dont leap down the throats of the people that do chose to circomsise their boys, that are doing waht they think will be best for their kids, and who would know that better thatn the parents.
Yes, let's chop off parts of our children's bodies becasue we know best. I mean, I don't like earlobes, maybe I should remove them from my sons, afterall, I'm the parent and I know what's best for my children.

it is still a choice adn it needs to say that way. how would you feel if a Gov't passed a law going the other way saying that boys had to be circomsised? things like this are best left to parents and kept out of the public eye.
That's like saying "well, how would you feel if they made it a government law to remove a child's earlobes shortly after birth?" it's really a poor analogy. I'm not saying to ban circumcision altogether, just leave infants out of it.

If it really matters....Yes i am snipped



I would show pictures but that would be against the rules....:eek: :eek: :eek:

In the US it's not done out of religious tradition. It's usually done so teh child will look like his father, or out of some false belief that foreskin makes the penis "unclean" et c. There are some religious circumcisions, but they don't make the majority of them.
even with that being the case there are a lot of things taht are dont out of tradition- they may not all be right and they WILL change with time. more and more parents are "doing there homework" about circomsision and many still chose to have the operation done.

It's also possible to get circumcised later in life, perhaps when these boys deceide that they want to belong to that faith.
it is possible but the operation involves a whole lotta pain the older a boy gets. for many the idea of not imbraseing the family faith is unheard of


I won't.
that is perfectly ok, but what is it to you if a parent wants to have there child circomsied?

Yes, let's chop off parts of our children's bodies becasue we know best. I mean, I don't like earlobes, maybe I should remove them from my sons, afterall, I'm the parent and I know what's best for my children.
in may colturs around ther world this sorta thing does happen. in aferica men and women have ther earlobes lips and tounghs disfigured at birth. they are also scared and tattoded as well.

That's like saying "well, how would you feel if they made it a government law to remove a child's earlobes shortly after birth?" it's really a poor analogy. I'm not saying to ban circumcision altogether, just leave infants out of it. if is was a law no one would have a choice. the ear lobe could be removed with no risk. i was not going for ananalogy i was simply asking you to paues for a moment and think about how you would feel if some one infringed on your right as a parent by forcing you to "cut" you boys, its teh exact same feeling of outrage adn scorn that parents who belive that they sould circomesie's feel when people talk about outlawing the practice. in reality it has zero effect on the sexual performance later in life, yes it may or may not reduce the risk of infection but that is not the point. it is a compleatly cosmetice thing. its like parents pircing the ears of baby girls who are only a few months old- in that case teh risk of infection is great or and no choice is give to teh chile on wheather or not they want to have their ears pirced yet parents still do it, becaue they have the right and the feedom of choice.

I can't understand half your typing, but basically you say that it's ok for parents to permanently disfigure their children in any way according to their traditions regardless of whether the child wants it or not. So female genital mutliation is ok then too?

DOnt' compare this to ear piercing, earrings can be taken out and the holes heal over, it's not the same thing at all. You can't regrow foreskin.

Well, I get that, but aren't women (No offence but they are... how should I put this... my target demographic) more interested in longevity then how much pleasure we get?

Depends if you are talking about a relationship or a one night stand.
I also hope most males know of other ways to pleasure the woman besides banging their meat into them ;)

I personally was not so arrogant to "correct" the Lords design.

I am but I wish I wasnt. I hear there is more pleasure in having it uncircumcised. I also think they look more attractive that way.

I wish my wife and I could find an uncircumcised guy to play with at least. damn wierd USian 'culture' that I had to grow up in.

So female genital mutliation is ok then too?

I'm not going to try to catch up on a thread this long, but I think it comes down to what effect it has on the child. The two procedures have marked differences in effect - one guarantees pain with sex, the other causes a loss of sensitivity that only some will ever even care about one day. I think the issue these days is yet another case of people not appreciating what they have, wanting something they cannot have.

DOnt' compare this to ear piercing, earrings can be taken out and the holes heal over, it's not the same thing at all. You can't regrow foreskin.

Actually, there are means by which one can redevelop it using weights and such. You ask who the parents are to deprive a child of their foreskin, I ask who they are to force him to get a painful procedure when they could have spared him the ordeal in the first place.

All in all, perhaps we ought to let each do as they will because who are we to say what anyone would want? This is not comparable to female genital mutilation, of that I am far more certain.

Circumcision looks disgusting.

....

All in all, perhaps we ought to let each do as they will because who are we to say what anyone would want? This is not comparable to female genital mutilation, of that I am far more certain.

I'm avoiding the majority of these posts as I'll only end up arguing with a number of people and the thread is long enough, but... how the heck, logically, is it not comparable with female genital mutilation?? It's EXACTLY the same thing, just done on a male. Same pain, same potential results (whether you believe they are negative or positive).

From blog (in a comments section):

"...the foreskin usually retracts later if it isn't retracting during very young childhood.

The forskin may not be the whole penis, but the comparison can still be fairly made - you either chop something off because of what might happen (eg. related to cleaning), or you don't. Whether it's a whole vagina or part of a penis, the answer has to logically be the same for both, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself. "

Circumcision looks disgusting.

Guess you'll just have to deal with it. Close your eyes, maybe.

I'm avoiding the majority of these posts as I'll only end up arguing with a number of people and the thread is long enough, but... how the heck, logically, is it not comparable with female genital mutilation?? It's EXACTLY the same thing, just done on a male. Same pain, same potential results (whether you believe they are negative or positive).

From blog (in a comments section):

"...the foreskin usually retracts later if it isn't retracting during very young childhood.

The forskin may not be the whole penis, but the comparison can still be fairly made - you either chop something off because of what might happen (eg. related to cleaning), or you don't. Whether it's a whole vagina or part of a penis, the answer has to logically be the same for both, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself. "
Female circumcision might be more accurately compared to chopping off the head of the penis.

The latest studies on microbicides and circumcision, not to mention oft-repeated endorsements by Stephen Lewis, Bill Clinton and Bill and Melinda Gates, gave delegates hope that millions of lives can be saved in the near future with promising HIV prevention tools other than condoms, clean needles and education. Public health authorities are looking seriously at rolling out a continent-wide circumcision program in Africa. And trial results of the first microbicide, or vaginal gel, to stop HIV are expected before the next conference in 2008. However, both methods have cultural taboos to overcome.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155938499772&call_pageid=1155031315217&col=1155031315200

Apparently the evidence has been improving that being circumcised helps prevent the spread of AIDS, or so they were saying at the International AIDS conference in Toronto a month back.

Guess you'll just have to deal with it. Close your eyes, maybe.
wouldn't work if he's the one performing the Circumcision. :eek:

how the heck, logically, is it not comparable with female genital mutilation?? It's EXACTLY the same thing, just done on a male. Same pain, same potential results (whether you believe they are negative or positive)....Whether it's a whole vagina or part of a penis, the answer has to logically be the same for both, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself.

That is a very shallow comparison. Something is cut, so it must be "EXACTLY" the same as something else being cut? I subscribe to no such black-and-white logic, so no, I do not contradict myself. The effect is in no way the same. Sex for a circumsized female is painful, while the best one can alledge for a male is a loss of sensitivity which they will never know. If you do not know this, I suggest you do check out the rest of this thread and educate yourself.

Female circumcision might be more accurately compared to chopping off the head of the penis.

The whole penis would be more acurate.

It will make urinating extremely painful, many circumsiced females have to be cut open before having sex for the first time, as the scar tissue is nowhere near flexible enough to let a penis enter. And imagine the joys of childbirth for these poor women...

I will go on the record and say:

I am circumsized, but when having relations with my (now) ex-girlfriend it was very very VERY good. So I do not regret being circumsized. I'm an American, by the way, so it's not like I had so much choice in the matter.

The whole penis would be more acurate.

It will make urinating extremely painful, many circumsiced females have to be cut open before having sex for the first time, as the scar tissue is nowhere near flexible enough to let a penis enter. And imagine the joys of childbirth for these poor women...
Perhaps so... I was just thinking of the parallel of the most sensitive part. But yeah, female circumcision is definitely fucked up. At least with male circumcision, there isn't a severe loss of feeling, and no residual complications.

The whole penis would be more acurate.

It will make urinating extremely painful, many circumsiced females have to be cut open before having sex for the first time, as the scar tissue is nowhere near flexible enough to let a penis enter. And imagine the joys of childbirth for these poor women...

what even happens in FGM? i don't understand exactly and don't really want to google it in case i end up on sites (possibly with pictures :eek: ) that i really don't want to be on...

what even happens in FGM? i don't understand exactly and don't really want to google it in case i end up on sites (possibly with pictures :eek: ) that i really don't want to be on...

I don't think you really want to know.

It's a whole nother level of wrongness than male circumcision, that's for sure.

what even happens in FGM? i don't understand exactly and don't really want to google it in case i end up on sites (possibly with pictures :eek: ) that i really don't want to be on...

If im not mistaken, the clitoris is cut off.

I don't think you really want to know.

It's a whole nother level of wrongness than male circumcision, that's for sure.

ordinarily i wouldn't really want to know (hence my not knowing or asking till now) but its been talked about on this thread enough to warrant enquiring.
i'm guessing it has something to do with vulva or labia being cut off maybe? *winces*

If im not mistaken, the clitoris is cut off.

The clitoris and the labia. Normally, this is performed by an old woman who's regarded as some sort of witch doctor, it's done in the home, with a razor blade or even a shard of glass. No sterile environment, no clean instruments.
In some cases, that vagina is then stiched up, leaving just a little opening to urinate. In that case, the girl has to be cut open again before intercourse. Even if they're not stiched up, the scar tissue will make sexual contact very painful each and every time.
And of course, by removing the primary sexual organs of the woman, you forever rid her of the ability to orgasm.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I seem to remember that the mortalilty rate from this operation is frighteningly high, and the number of circumcised women who die in childbirth due to complications is way above average.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I seem to remember that the mortalilty rate from this operation is frighteningly high, and the number of circumcised women who die in childbirth due to complications is way above average.

Whats even worse, is that in many parts of Africa, this is a daily occurance, and done in mass numbers.

In some villiages, up to 20 a day are done, all at once, and usually with the same instruments.
This is one of the primary contributors in the spread of the AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Coupled with that, are the Rape Gangs.

Tribal ignorance still reigns supreme in some places, and the mistaken believe that raping a virgin will cure aids, still exists.

Real Estate in Africa will be very cheap in about ten years.

The clitoris and the labia. Normally, this is performed by an old woman who's regarded as some sort of witch doctor, it's done in the home, with a razor blade or even a shard of glass. No sterile environment, no clean instruments.
In some cases, that vagina is then stiched up, leaving just a little opening to urinate. In that case, the girl has to be cut open again before intercourse. Even if they're not stiched up, the scar tissue will make sexual contact very painful each and every time.
And of course, by removing the primary sexual organs of the woman, you forever rid her of the ability to orgasm.

I don't know the exact numbers, but I seem to remember that the mortalilty rate from this operation is frighteningly high, and the number of circumcised women who die in childbirth due to complications is way above average.

that is horrific :-S
and just.... wrong :mad:

what possible reason could there be to do this? why do they do it? religion??

that is horrific :-S
and just.... wrong :mad:

what possible reason could there be to do this? why do they do it? religion??

They claim to be doing it for religious reasons, but the areas in which this kind of mutilation is customary are Christian and Islamic for the most part.
It's part of the local tradition, and the motivation behind it seems to be that a woman would be less likely to cheat on her husband, or have sex in any socially unacceptable way at all, if she doesn't enjoy sex in the first place.

"Wrong" doesn't come close in describing it.

They claim to be doing it for religious reasons, but the areas in which this kind of mutilation is customary are Christian and Islamic for the most part.
It's part of the local tradition, and the motivation behind it seems to be that a woman would be less likely to cheat on her husband, or have sex in any socially unacceptable way at all, if she doesn't enjoy sex in the first place.

"Wrong" doesn't come close in describing it.

I am both Muslim and American, so I guess I have a double excuse! Also, I don't care. Honestly. What's the fucking difference?

They claim to be doing it for religious reasons, but the areas in which this kind of mutilation is customary are Christian and Islamic for the most part.
It's part of the local tradition, and the motivation behind it seems to be that a woman would be less likely to cheat on her husband, or have sex in any socially unacceptable way at all, if she doesn't enjoy sex in the first place.

"Wrong" doesn't come close in describing it.

In the more radical Islamic places where this is peformed, its kinda of like an insurance policy.

Since all women are natural born sluts, we will ruin sex for them forever, and this way, she will always be faithful to her brave husband, who is kind enough not to beat his wife, since shes worthless without her husband, and God.

Her needs, and desires not to be mutilated, are secondary to her husbands needs, naturally, as God intended it.

/end crazy muslim mentality.

I am both Muslim and American, so I guess I have a double excuse! Also, I don't care. Honestly. What's the fucking difference?

Between a healthy, intact woman and one who's circumcised?

- The ability to pee without constant pain
- The fact that she does not have to be cut open with a scalpel when she wants to have sex
- The fact that she can enjoy sexual stimulation
- The fact that she can orgasm
- The fact that she will most likely not have to be cut open again to give birth

... among many other minor things.

In the more radical Islamic places where this is peformed, its kinda of like an insurance policy.

Since all women are natural born sluts, we will ruin sex for them forever, and this way, she will always be faithful to her brave husband, who is kind enough not to beat his wife, since shes worthless without her husband, and God.

Her needs, and desires not to be mutilated, are secondary to her husbands needs, naturally, as God intended it.

/end crazy muslim mentality.

I thought I had pointed out that this was a local tradition rather than a religious one... but go ahead. Sure. It's cause they're Muslims. Christians in those areas don't ever do the exact same thing... :rolleyes:

Between a healthy, intact woman and one who's circumcised?

- The ability to pee without constant pain
- The fact that she does not have to be cut open with a scalpel when she wants to have sex
- The fact that she can enjoy sexual stimulation
- The fact that she can orgasm
- The fact that she will most likely not have to be cut open again to give birth

... among many other minor things.
ewait wait wait. I am completely against female gentile mulatation. Or however it's spelled. I have had a half a bottle of Southern Comvoert, don't hold that against me. I hate FGM more than anyone.

I am taking a Women's Rights class in school, even though I am a man. YES. And the 19 out of twenty in that class are quite attracive. You youngtsers, consider taking such a class.

I thought I had pointed out that this was a local tradition rather than a religious one... but go ahead. Sure. It's cause they're Muslims. Christians in those areas don't ever do the exact same thing... :rolleyes:

I agree. Good man who are Muslims will treat their wives the same way as good men who are Christians. The same is the same. God loves those who are just.

I thought I had pointed out that this was a local tradition rather than a religious one... but go ahead. Sure. It's cause they're Muslims. Christians in those areas don't ever do the exact same thing... :rolleyes:

Never said it was merely a Muslim thing.

Especially in Africa.

Thats pretty much all about the Christian ones.

I'm not circumcised.

I am circumcised and I am happy that I am. I agree that it should be upto the child whether he wants to be circumcised or not, but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that. :-\

DOnt' compare this to ear piercing, earrings can be taken out and the holes heal over, it's not the same thing at all.
My hole never healed over and the earring has been out for over three years. But I agree circumcision is nothing like ear piercings.

I can't understand half your typing, but basically you say that it's ok for parents to permanently disfigure their children in any way according to their traditions regardless of whether the child wants it or not.

Ok. You said he wasn't mutilated and now you say "disfigured?"

So which is it?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155938499772&call_pageid=1155031315217&col=1155031315200

Apparently the evidence has been improving that being circumcised helps prevent the spread of AIDS, or so they were saying at the International AIDS conference in Toronto a month back.

Debunked. (http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html)

Galtiana;11644175']Debunked. (http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html)

You might want to draw from a legitimate source

Reading:

"The struggle for genital integrity and against the involuntary genital modification of children of any sex:"

Kind of suggests a biased response.

If im not mistaken, the clitoris is cut off.


Usually the same thing as they do to men.. cut off the foreskin .. 'hood'(prepuce) leaving the glan exposed. That would be bad enough in itself without removal of the clit or the labia minora.

Usually the same thing as they do to men.. cut off the foreskin .. 'hood'(prepuce) leaving the glan exposed. That would be bad enough in itself without removal of the clit or the labia minora.

Huh? Cutting of the clitoris is the same thing as cutting off the foreskin???

Huh? Cutting of the clitoris is the same thing as cutting off the foreskin???


No. We have a foreskin also .. the clit is ..well the clit .. like their glan .. it's our glan. Most female circs are the cutting off of the foreskin(clitoral hood - not the clit itself) and the labia (inner lips). Leaving our glan exposed.. like what a male circ does to them.

I've got a picture of exactly what I'm talking about.. but no way I can post it on here.

Need to clarify .. that I'm Not talking about mutilation.. but circumcision. In mutilation hell they might remove everything and sew it up.

We have a foreskin also .. the clit is ..well the clit .. like their glan .. it's our glan. Most female circs are the cutting off of the foreskin(clitoral hood) and the labia (inner lips).

I know we have. What you are referring to is called Clitoridotomy, the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood.

Female circumcision, however, usually refers to the removal of the clitoris and labia.

I know we have. What you are referring to is called Clitoridotomy, the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood.

Female circumcision, however, usually refers to the removal of the clitoris and labia.

I thought the removal of it was mutilation. Looked at some sites for female circ and they showed the hood and lips removed, which is bad, but the clit still their.
Will search more and on what you mentioned. If I can stomach it.

Just different definitions I guess.

Clitoral circumcision: Refers to the surgical procedure in which the hood of the females clitoris (called the clitoral prepuce) is removed. However, the term is often confused in modern day writings with ritual procedures performed in Egypt and in other countries as noted below. On the CIRCLIST website, we refer to female circumcision as only the removal of the hood of the clitoris unless otherwise noted.

Sunna circumcision: Consists of the removal of the tip of the clitoris, sometimes performed by cutting a hole in a piece of cloth and placing it over the area to be cut, limiting the size of the area. In certain cases the clitoris is just nicked with a knife or razor, in parts of Mexico and South America, the sign of the cross is cut into it. Sunna, in Arabic, means "tradition". The clitoral hood is also sometimes removed.

Clitoridectomy: sometimes referred to as excision, which involves the removal of the entire clitoris, rather than just the tip. The labia minora; the inside lips of the vagina are also sometimes removed, but the outer labia are left intact. The vaginal opening is left open and unchanged, rather than sewn together, as in the case of Pharaonic Circumcision.

Pharaonic Circumcision: the entire clitoris is removed, as well as the inner and outer labia (minora and majora), scraping of the sides of the vulva and then joining them together and sewing them up with thread or catgut, or sometimes closing them with thorns. A small opening is left in order that urine and menstrual blood may pass through. This is also sometimes referred to as infibulations. A woman who has had this procedure must be cut open to allow childbirth, and then is re-sewn to ensure faithfulness to her husband.



http://www.circlist.com/femalecirc/anatfemale.html

Happily uncircumcised male here.
It's also what I strongly prefer in other men, for various magical reasons.

In general, I don't support any form of genital modification that's not undergone voluntarily (and I mean free-will-voluntarily, not "I do that or my family will pelt me with stones"-"voluntarily"); of course, whatever an adult wants to do with their parts, it's their decision.

Galtiana;11644175']Debunked. (http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html)

No.

Your site raies questions and attempts to critique the studies, it does not actually debunk anything.

The closest it comes to debunking anything is when it attempts to state that since circumcision is not perfect protection against transmitting AIDS, it will contribute to spreading it more as circumcised men feel safe.
This line of reasoning has 2 flaws.
1. No one is implying this is anything more than a reduction in AIDS transmission, it is NOT protection.
2. In order to even make the argument, it concedes that circumcision does have a positive effect, but then proposes that the men are too ignorant not to benefit from it.

I am, and I'm a christian, it's pretty common to have it done just after birth in America.

Really? I know several male American and eh I don't think its as common as you would think. If its not done from a religious point of view then why bother doing it at all? As for female circumsion?? I think its more commonly known as FGM-Female Genital Mutation and its wrong, at least guys have bits to snip off. Women are sewed.

Ok. You said he wasn't mutilated and now you say "disfigured?"

So which is it?
I didn't say that circumcision was difsigurement, that was in refrence to parents inflicting scars on their young children's faces and the like and how he supported their right to do that.

My hole never healed over and the earring has been out for over three years. But I agree circumcision is nothing like ear piercings.
How long were you pierced? I've had to re-pierce my ears a couple of times after leaving them out for less than three years and I got my first holes when I was six.

Also, if you're testing it every now and then by trying to shove an earring back in, you're just going to end up either re-piercing it or slowing the healing process. And if you haven't tried to shove an earring back in, it's possible that it is healed up, but if it was done with a gun instead of a needle, it has become hard on the inside... in which case you should have applied vitamin E before letting the hole close up.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155938499772&call_pageid=1155031315217&col=1155031315200

Apparently the evidence has been improving that being circumcised helps prevent the spread of AIDS, or so they were saying at the International AIDS conference in Toronto a month back.
You know what really helps prevent the spread of AIDS? Condoms and not getting involved in risky sex acts in the first place.

I'm a circumcised American, and I can tell you as a jock that here in the south circumcision in the norm. Locker rooms don't exactly allow for privacy, and neither does the military. I don't know about other areas.

However, I do know that the chief reason for circumcision is that the interior of the foreskin is a weak spot for infection, and that the main reason why is failure to clean it properly. Thats why studies have conflicting results. Some say cleaning it is just as good as circumcision. However, a circumcised male doesn't have to worry about the health issues on that front any longer. There's also a slew of other possible benefits that they keep making carefully hedged statements on, but nothing really definite.

Anyways, remember this. An uncircumcised penis looks smaller.

You know what really helps prevent the spread of AIDS? Condoms and not getting involved in risky sex acts in the first place.

Condoms break. Well, maybe not for you, but it happens to me. That's why my girl is on birth control. Unfortunately, that still leaves disease. So just get tested. I get tested every few months. It's free.

My rocket doesn't have flaps.

Condoms break. Well, maybe not for you, but it happens to me. That's why my girl is on birth control. Unfortunately, that still leaves disease. So just get tested. I get tested every few months. It's free.
Why would you have to worry about disease if you only have one girl...?

Anyways, remember this. An uncircumcised penis looks smaller.
It only looks smaller if it is smaller... the foreskin retracts when it's erect and it looks much the same, though without the odd colouration of a cut penis.

Why would you have to worry about disease if you only have one girl...?

it's called being practical. ;)

it's called being practical. ;)
I would hardly call getting tested for STD's constantly in a monogamous relationship being practical.

I also don't know what people do to condoms to make them break.

I would hardly call getting tested for STD's constantly in a monogamous relationship being practical.

I also don't know what people do to condoms to make them break.

how do you know it's a monogamous relationship?

how do you know it's a monogamous relationship?
He said "my girl is on birth control" which implies he's only having sex with one girl.

He said "my girl is on birth control" which implies he's only having sex with one girl.

but how does he know she isn't out having sex with other people?