NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Maybe it's monogamous on his end. She's having sex with me. :p

but how does he know she isn't out having sex with other people?
He could ask her.

Maybe it's monogamous on his end. She's having sex with me. :p
that would be my point
He could ask her.
she could lie.

apparently he doesn't trust her so he is getting tested, it's not a bad thing, not trusting her and not getting tested would be bad.

apparently he doesn't trust her so he is getting tested, it's not a bad thing, not trusting her and not getting tested would be bad.

Not trusting her and being in a "monogamous" relationship with her is bad.

Not trusting her and being in a "monogamous" relationship with her is bad.

why?

if he is honest about it, isn't it her choice to stay?

I thought long and hard about circumcisum and in the end I had myself pierced instead. It serves a better function you see.

you say it perfectly. Appearently, my penis is mutilated according to a large group of people who aren't themselves circumcised

Others may avoid saying the word 'mutilated', but I'm going to use it - because it IS genital mutilation.

It doesn't matter if someone is mutilated to look like someone else... they are STILL mutilated.

Circumcision involves taking a perfectly functional piece of a human child, that is either evolved for a purpose or placed there by god, depending on your view, and arbitrarily performing a non-essential surgery on it.

Any surgery has a risk of infectin, or even death... even a tiny little surgery like circumcision.

One wonders - those who advocate circumcision... do these same people take their cars back to the dealer, tell them how much they LOVE the ride, and then ask if they can take the springs out of the suspension?

why?

if he is honest about it, isn't it her choice to stay?

I meant on his end. If he doesn't trust her, he shouldn't be in a relationship with her. Real relationships require trust.

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.

Stupid idea... a nationwide circumcision program to help prevent the spread of AIDS... and then you'll have a huge UPSWING in reported HIV infections, because people will start having unprotected sex, because they think being circumcised is going to 'save them'.

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 like Yesmusic when he is drunk. (He, right?)

No, I'm not circumcised. Quite glad about it too, since I'm a girl. ;) I have no opinion, good or bad, of circumcision. If I have sons, I'll have them circumcised if the doctor tells me it's healthier for them. Because in the end, I'll trust the doctor more than I trust the opinions of some people on a forum and certainly more than I trust some random information pulled off the internet.

she could lie.

apparently he doesn't trust her so he is getting tested, it's not a bad thing, not trusting her and not getting tested would be bad.
Why would he be in a sexual relationship with a person he doesn't trust?

I mean, it's possible that their relationship allows her to go have sex with other men, but as her sexual partner, he should be allowed to ask her if she is, not necessarily out of paranoia, but for his own health.

I meant on his end. If he doesn't trust her, he shouldn't be in a relationship with her. Real relationships require trust.

blind trust is dangerous. I see no problem with them being in a relationship only wanting to sleep with eachother and still getting tested.

blind trust is dangerous. I see no problem with them being in a relationship only wanting to sleep with eachother and still getting tested.
But why would anyone fuck someone they don't trust at all? If you suspect that the person's lying to you or would lie to you, why are you in a sexual relationship with them at all? I mean, this person might very well go off her birth control and puncture your condoms, making you an unwilling father...

Why would he be in a sexual relationship with a person he doesn't trust?
why do people have one night stands? casual sex? fuckbuddies?

it's really none of my business, or yours for that matter.

I mean, it's possible that their relationship allows her to go have sex with other men, but as her sexual partner, he should be allowed to ask her if she is, not necessarily out of paranoia, but for his own health.
he should be allowed to ask, he is also allowed to protect himself if he thinks he needs to be tested, he should be allowed to get tested.

blind trust is dangerous. I see no problem with them being in a relationship only wanting to sleep with eachother and still getting tested.

I never said blind trust...

why do people have one night stands? casual sex? fuckbuddies?
One night stands and casual sex require some minimal levels of trust, even if there's no need to trust in your partner (for the evening's) fidelity. I mean, you do have to trust that they're not going to kill you in your sleep or some such. Fuckbuddies is a different situation, but there is usually trust involved (again, fidelity isn't usually one of those things that are required there). It's incredibly stupid to be in a sexual relationship if you don't trust someone at all.

he should be allowed to ask, he is also allowed to protect himself if he thinks he needs to be tested, he should be allowed to get tested.
Yes, of course, but why continue to fuck someone if you think they're lying to you all the time?

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.


You know that, do you? When I refused to allow the hospital to circumcise my son (they kept sending people to ask me if I was sure, and they were actually sorting paperwork for the procedure when they 'asked' the first time... they didn't seem able to comprehend the answer might be 'no'), I asked the doctors WHY the surgery NEEDED to be performed. The medical profession doesn't agree with your 'knowledge'... certainly not strongly enough to present it as a reason why I needed to let the circumcise.


Anyways, remember this. An uncircumcised penis looks smaller.

And?

(Not that I'm convinced. If I look smaller because I'm not circumcised, I dread to think how I would have looked circumcised.)

No, I'm not circumcised. Quite glad about it too, since I'm a girl. ;) I have no opinion, good or bad, of circumcision. If I have sons, I'll have them circumcised if the doctor tells me it's healthier for them. Because in the end, I'll trust the doctor more than I trust the opinions of some people on a forum and certainly more than I trust some random information pulled off the internet.

Your realise, of course, that the doctor might say 'yes' purely because he might get paid for the op?

(Whether you pay him or not).

I never said blind trust...
my bad. apparently she hasn't given him means to trust her, if he still feels the need to be tested.

One night stands and casual sex require some minimal levels of trust, even if there's no need to trust in your partner (for the evening's) fidelity. I mean, you do have to trust that they're not going to kill you in your sleep or some such. Fuckbuddies is a different situation, but there is usually trust involved (again, fidelity isn't usually one of those things that are required there). It's incredibly stupid to be in a sexual relationship if you don't trust someone at all.
ah...you are being judgmental. ;) someone else's sexual choices are none of your business as long as you know everyone consents.


Yes, of course, but why continue to fuck someone if you think they're lying to you all the time?

because you get to have sex?

And?

(Not that I'm convinced. If I look smaller because I'm not circumcised, I dread to think how I would have looked circumcised.)
I think they look weird when they aren't erect, but that's probably since I have been conditioned to the "cut" look, but once they are erect there really is no difference in looks.

because you get to have sex?

Perfectly good reason. :)

Just remember, guys, wrap it up.

ah...you are being judgmental. ;) someone else's sexual choices are none of your business as long as you know everyone consents.
I never said it was my business, that doesn't make it any less stupid, however. I mean, jumping out of a plane at a high altitude without a parachute is incredibly stupid, but that doesn't mean that it's my business if someone else wants to try doing so.

because you get to have sex?
And it's impossible to find someone you can trust to fuck? There's only one person on the planet willing to fuck you?

I think they look weird when they aren't erect, but that's probably since I have been conditioned to the "cut" look, but once they are erect there really is no difference in looks.
I think cut ones look weirder when not erect... I mean, really.

I never said it was my business, that doesn't make it any less stupid, however.

stupid is a value statement.

And it's impossible to find someone you can trust to fuck? There's only one person on the planet willing to fuck you?
it's possible, or it's possible that he made a choice to sleep with someone he wants to.

I think cut ones look weirder when not erect... I mean, really.

yeah, I guess it depends on what you are around when you are growing up, I have been penis brainwashed.

I remember the first time I saw one "uncut" it was weird, I always thought he was trying to hide something......LOL

stupid is a value statement.
No, there are some things that are just ineherntly stupid. Having sex with someone you don't trust at all is one of those things.

No, there are some things that are just ineherntly stupid. Having sex with someone you don't trust at all is one of those things.

prove it. If you can't it's an opinion and therefore a value statement.

Your realise, of course, that the doctor might say 'yes' purely because he might get paid for the op?

(Whether you pay him or not).

And that he may give you missinformation bout benefits or drawbacks of the procedure. Better to check the national association of doctors, which I belive is the AMA in US, right?

prove it. If you can't it's an opinion and therefore a value statement.
Well, if you have sex with someone you don't trust they could do any number of things, they could rob you in your sleep, they could kill you, they could be purposely trying to infect you with a disease, they could be trying to get knocked up by you, et c, obviously the benefits (sex) are greatly outweighed by the potential risks, thus it's stupid. QED.

Well, if you have sex with someone you don't trust they could do any number of things, they could rob you in your sleep, they could kill you, they could be purposely trying to infect you with a disease, they could be trying to get knocked up by you, et c, obviously the benefits (sex) are greatly outweighed by the potential risks, thus it's stupid. QED.

premarital sex is stupid, you could get pregnant, you could get a disease, you could get your feelings hurt............the risks outweigh the benefits, thus it's stupid.


see how that works?

I think they look weird when they aren't erect, but that's probably since I have been conditioned to the "cut" look...

As an uncircumcised male married to a Georgia girl, I can tell you that it doesn't take long to 'get over' the conditioning.

...but once they are erect there really is no difference in looks.

Then, the answer is: keep it erect, yes?

As an uncircumcised male married to a Georgia girl, I can tell you that it doesn't take long to 'get over' the conditioning.
I suppose if the sex is good.......haha.

Then, the answer is: keep it erect, yes?
sure, but you know not forever, you don't want it to die and fall off or anything.

premarital sex is stupid, you could get pregnant, you could get a disease, you could get your feelings hurt............the risks outweigh the benefits, thus it's stupid.


see how that works?
No, premarital sex with someone you trust has many fewer risks than premarital sex with someone you don't.

Besides, sex within marriage carries the same risks you listed.

And that he may give you missinformation bout benefits or drawbacks of the procedure. Better to check the national association of doctors, which I belive is the AMA in US, right?

I believe so.

The other thing to watch in the US, is that they have weird rules.... professionals are allowed to compromise aspects of their professions because of religion.

So - a doctor MIGHT tell you circumcision was cleaner/safer/better... just ebcause they have a religious belief that prompts them to do so.

No, premarital sex with someone you trust has many fewer risks than premarital sex with someone you don't.

Besides, sex within marriage carries the same risks you listed.

:rolleyes: that's my point (bold added)

there is no guaranty that my husband won't come home and murder me one day either.

I suppose if the sex is good.......haha.


I guess that means I don't have to say it... ;)

I'm not saying it becomes un-noticable... it just stops being something (so it appears) that 'seems odd'.


sure, but you know not forever, you don't want it to die and fall off or anything.

No. Dying and falling off sounds un-good. Although, I guess, it solves the 'problem' of whether or not to be circumcised. :eek:

Of course - you can only tell if it is chopped or not, once it is 'in the open', so to speak... so, provided you don't have a 24-hour nudity rule, you don't need it to be erect ALL the time.

Of course - you can only tell if it is chopped or not, once it is 'in the open', so to speak... so, provided you don't have a 24-hour nudity rule, you don't need it to be erect ALL the time.

How can you not have this rule in a relationship? ;)

Others may avoid saying the word 'mutilated', but I'm going to use it - because it IS genital mutilation.

It doesn't matter if someone is mutilated to look like someone else... they are STILL mutilated.

Circumcision involves taking a perfectly functional piece of a human child, that is either evolved for a purpose or placed there by god, depending on your view, and arbitrarily performing a non-essential surgery on it.

Any surgery has a risk of infectin, or even death... even a tiny little surgery like circumcision.

One wonders - those who advocate circumcision... do these same people take their cars back to the dealer, tell them how much they LOVE the ride, and then ask if they can take the springs out of the suspension?

Totally agree.

Others may avoid saying the word 'mutilated', but I'm going to use it - because it IS genital mutilation.
and thats why I like ya. You're honest. Most other people would run away from calling someone mutilated.
I think you know me well enough to know that I'm proud of all of the assorted mutilations I carry...be it ones that I chose, like my tattoos and piercings, or ones that I didn't, such as my scars and the fact that I'm circumcised.

It doesn't matter if someone is mutilated to look like someone else... they are STILL mutilated.I agree.

Circumcision involves taking a perfectly functional piece of a human child, that is either evolved for a purpose or placed there by god, depending on your view, and arbitrarily performing a non-essential surgery on it.well, we'll just ignore that little "god" part for now, but not everything that exists on or in the human body has a function...perfect example is the appendix.

Any surgery has a risk of infectin, or even death... even a tiny little surgery like circumcision.of course. Anyone who says otherwise should be kicked in the teeth.

One wonders - those who advocate circumcision... do these same people take their cars back to the dealer, tell them how much they LOVE the ride, and then ask if they can take the springs out of the suspension?
hmm...well, I don't say the procedure should be banned, but I also don't say it should be mandatory....so I guess that makes me something close to an advocate? In that case, I never tried life uncircumcised, but depending on the car, I might be the one to ask to take the suspension out (trucks aren't meant to have soft rides. *insert sex joke about "rides" here*)

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.

Opps. Guess I should read before speaking ;)

and thats why I like ya. You're honest. Most other people would run away from calling someone mutilated.


:)

I believe in honesty, even if it's brutal. I expect the same from others. This is why we get along. :)


I think you know me well enough to know that I'm proud of all of the assorted mutilations I carry...be it ones that I chose, like my tattoos and piercings, or ones that I didn't, such as my scars and the fact that I'm circumcised.


And this is good. I am 'proud' of my tattoo... not because of what it 'is', but because of what it means - to me.

And - that is my problem with infant circumcision... you don't get to 'choose' it. It's not even an unchosen aspect of parts of your lifestyle you DID chose... like some of my scars that are the results of 'accidents'... but 'accidents' that only happened because of where I was, or what I was doing that made them possible.

Adults wanting to be circumcised? Knock yourself out! Want to do what Genesis P Orridge did, and get it literally split all the way along it's length? Go for it.

I just don't hold with unnecessary surgeries on those we are supposed to protect... much less, for a purely cosmetic reason that matters to US, rather than what will matter to them.


well, we'll just ignore that little "god" part for now, but not everything that exists on or in the human body has a function...perfect example is the appendix.


The 'god' part is in there because there are two views... but both insist on the foreskin being there 'for a reason'. Either we evolved it, or it was placed there. Either way... Little Grave didn't just wake up one morning with a hoody.


hmm...well, I don't say the procedure should be banned, but I also don't say it should be mandatory....so I guess that makes me something close to an advocate? In that case, I never tried life uncircumcised, but depending on the car, I might be the one to ask to take the suspension out (trucks aren't meant to have soft rides. *insert sex joke about "rides" here*)

The ride comment was troubling me even as I typed it. I could see the inbuilt pun, but, I decided it was 'on-topic', so I allowed it. :)

As for being an advocate... DO you advocate it? Or are you 'pro-choice'?

Myself - I 'advocate' non-circumcision for children. I think it should be a matter between an adult and their genitals. Or their god. But I repeat myself.

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

You know what really really helps prevent the spread of AIDS? Monogamous relationships.

You know what really really really helps prevent the spread of AIDS? Celibacy.

Of course, neither of my points, nor your point have anything to do with whether or not circumcision offers any protection in the spread of AIDS.

Stupid idea... a nationwide circumcision program to help prevent the spread of AIDS... and then you'll have a huge UPSWING in reported HIV infections, because people will start having unprotected sex, because they think being circumcised is going to 'save them'.

Continent wide actually.

Your objection seems to be that people are too stupid to take advantage of the benefit circumcision in relation to AIDS prevention.

Your realise, of course, that the doctor might say 'yes' purely because he might get paid for the op?

(Whether you pay him or not).

And that he may give you missinformation bout benefits or drawbacks of the procedure. Better to check the national association of doctors, which I belive is the AMA in US, right?

I believe so.

The other thing to watch in the US, is that they have weird rules.... professionals are allowed to compromise aspects of their professions because of religion.

So - a doctor MIGHT tell you circumcision was cleaner/safer/better... just ebcause they have a religious belief that prompts them to do so.
All good points. What I should have said in my earlier post was that if my doctor can present me both sides of the issue, but still give me strong medical evidence to convince me that my child will be healthier if he is circumcised, then I will probably have my son circumcised. If on the other hand, the doctor simply says "your child will be healthier this way because I say so, just do it" - then I'll be very skeptical and not inclined to have it done. That and I'll want a new doctor.

Continent wide actually.

Your objection seems to be that people are too stupid to take advantage of the benefit circumcision in relation to AIDS prevention.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

The 'benefit' is far from certain... it is very much open to debate. The problem is - you whip a miracle cure in people's faces, and they think they are invulnerable... tell them being uncircumcised will protect them from AIDS, and they WILL have more unprotected sex. It is human nature.

So... we'll last longer?

Thus the reason a large majority of women prefer circumcized men.

No, and I'll stay that way. Thank you.

All good points. What I should have said in my earlier post was that if my doctor can present me both sides of the issue, but still give me strong medical evidence to convince me that my child will be healthier if he is circumcised, then I will probably have my son circumcised. If on the other hand, the doctor simply says "your child will be healthier this way because I say so, just do it" - then I'll be very skeptical and not inclined to have it done. That and I'll want a new doctor.

My little boy was born less than a year ago. I thought about having him circumcised, even though I am not.

I talked to doctors, and I read around the subject. I didn't find any evidence strong enough to, in my mind, make it worth performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn.

Thus the reason a large majority of women prefer circumcized men.
I would hardly call it a large majority, at least outside ot the US.

And circumcised men do not last longer. The shortest sex I've ever had has been with cut men.

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

ROFL
This is silly. I'll tell you what. Any of you women that are curious about circumcised men, give me a ring. We'll meet up, and I'll show you what its like. I've gotten feedback on many an occasion, and believe me, even my exes never complained about the sex. And you know how female exes are. Thats their favorite way to rip you a new one.

By the way, I can't get it in if she's not wet. But then again, if you can, I'd say that means you have a teeny pecker. So brag about it. And if you are glad you can finish in 15 minutes every time, then I can promise you I'd steal your woman within one night. Quickies are good every now and then, but I've never met a women that had no interest in a few 45 minute-hour and a half sessions. Anything longer and that and they are gonna dry up.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

Just to get the quote right...

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein

And you know how female exes are. Thats their favorite way to rip you a new one.
:rolleyes: Yes, we all love marathon sex and we're all vicious bitches once we become exes.

By the way, I can't get it in if she's not wet. But then again, if you can, I'd say that means you have a teeny pecker. So brag about it. And if you are glad you can finish in 15 minutes every time, then I can promise you I'd steal your woman within one night. Quickies are good every now and then, but I've never met a women that had no interest in a few 45 minute-hour and a half sessions. Anything longer and that and they are gonna dry up.
I'm not interested in fucking for an hour and a half, I'd be sore long before then. I have more orgasms through direct clitoral play than I do from intercourse anyways, if all you can do to please a woman is fuck then I'd have no interest in giving you a try.

And once again, cut men do not last longer. They do seem to moan less... but that might just be because the particular guys I've been with aren't vocal in that way...

My little boy was born less than a year ago. I thought about having him circumcised, even though I am not.

I talked to doctors, and I read around the subject. I didn't find any evidence strong enough to, in my mind, make it worth performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn.

This is basically where I fall. Yes, in the same situation, it appears that an uncircumcized man might be more likely to get the HIV virus from a partner. This makes perfect sense actually - he has more permeable mucous membranes exposed. But the vast majority of the risk for HIV comes from the behavior of the man (and his partner(s)), not from whether or not he is circumcized.

A circumcized boy/man also has a decreased risk for certain types of infections. However, this risk usually boils down to hygeine issues. Many guys that I know feel uncomfortable actually washing their penises like they do the rest of their body, so they figure they'll just kind of let the soap and water from the rest of their body run over it. For a circumcized man, this might be enough. For the uncircumcized, it isn't. Of course, if we don't tell young boys that touching their penises is dirty and we make sure they clean properly....

As such, I think I would much prefer to properly teach any sons I may have (and the men in my fiance's family seem to only have Y-chromosome sperm, so a son is fairly likely when we start trying for a baby) about (a) good hygeine and (b) the risks of sex and HIV, and leave the decision of possible circumcision up to them.


As for the sex issue - I've only had sex with circumcized men, so I can't make any comparisons. But I would guess that the pleasure involved for the woman has more to do with the particular man and how good he is at it (or how willing he is to try), rather than whether or not he is circumcized.

...
As such, I think I would much prefer to properly teach any sons I may have (and the men in my fiance's family seem to only have Y-chromosome sperm, so a son is fairly likely when we start trying for a baby) about (a) good hygeine and (b) the risks of sex and HIV, and leave the decision of possible circumcision up to them.


The benefits of circumcision (not addressing if the risks are worth it or not) are far more likely to occur if the procedure is done on an infant less than three weeks old. A child or an adult who has a circumcision procedure done does so at a much higher risk factor and is less chance of benefiting from it.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

The 'benefit' is far from certain... it is very much open to debate. The problem is - you whip a miracle cure in people's faces, and they think they are invulnerable... tell them being uncircumcised will protect them from AIDS, and they WILL have more unprotected sex. It is human nature.

The stupidity of people is not in question here. You're trying to debate policy now, not the actual health benefits (or lack thereof).

Of course it is still very much open to debate, it always will be, regardless of what studies ever 'prove'. It is an emotionally charged issue for too many people and people on both sides of it will hold to their beliefs regardless of how much evidence there ever is.

But back to my point, there is now enough evidence that circumcision helps prevent AIDS that the former President of the USA spoke about circumsion openly as a potential method to fight AIDS at this year's AIDS conference.

Clinton saying it doesn't 'prove' anything, it simply demonstrates that there is enough evidence for it to not be dismissed out of hand.

The benefits of circumcision (not addressing if the risks are worth it or not) are far more likely to occur if the procedure is done on an infant less than three weeks old. A child or an adult who has a circumcision procedure done does so at a much higher risk factor and is less chance of benefiting from it.
What benefits of circumcision?

The benefits of circumcision (not addressing if the risks are worth it or not) are far more likely to occur if the procedure is done on an infant less than three weeks old. A child or an adult who has a circumcision procedure done does so at a much higher risk factor and is less chance of benefiting from it.

The benefits (re: HIV, anyways) are related to the lack of exposed mucous membranes. Just as an infant's skin keratinizes in response to the lack of a foreskin, an adult's skin will do so. Thus, the STD-related benefits will be the same. I've read nothing in the various studies on this subject to suggest otherwise.

And the hygeinic benefits are directly related to the lack of a foreskin, and the necessity of cleaning under it. Again, the benefits with a successful circumcision will be identical, as the foreskin will be gone (and you won't have to pull it back to clean) in either circumstance.

You are right that the risk from the procedure itself is higher in an adult, but at that point, the procedure, and therefore taking the risk, is chosen by the person at risk.

Infantile genital mutilation violates all 7 tenets of the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics, and yet most American doctors will happily perform the procedure.

It's a barbaric practise.

What benefits of circumcision?

Reduced risk of:
HIV, HPV, Balanitis, penile and cervical cancer, Phimosis and Paraphimosis, and urinary tract infections.

Reduced risk of:
HIV, HPV, Balanitis, penile and cervical cancer, Phimosis and Paraphimosis, and urinary tract infections.
:rolleyes:
So we're going to start amputating our limbs and scraping off our skin to prevent cancer now?

The HIV risk isn't necessarily reduced by circumcision, phimosis is extremely rare, as is penile cancer, cervical cancer can be prevented with a vaccination and urinary tract infections can be treated with simple antibiotics.

I'm curcimsized and im proud that my parents chose to do that operation when i was born. Theres alot of ppl saying that it isn't right for the parents to choose such a thing for a child but really.... would you actually go through curcimsision if your parents waited till you were old enough to decide for yourself? I for one would not have, it seems too painfull to endure when your older. Like the masai in Kenya who curcimsize you when your in the transision between teenager and adult. All they do it pour ice cold water over you and start the operation. If you make noise of pain or kick the docter away you are considered a discrace to the family for being a coward. For me being halkf kenyan im happy they chose to do it when i was small enough to not care. And it really is more healthier except it is said that cercumsised ppl will lose theres nerves after time, meaning they will not enjoy sex as much as un-curcumsised ppl. But that doesnt mean its not enjoyable! :P
Btw....whats with all this stuff of america doing curcimcision. I thought America would be on of the nations that actually dont do that. Oh well....i get surprised every day

Theres alot of ppl saying that it isn't right for the parents to choose such a thing for a child but really.... would you actually go through curcimsision if your parents waited till you were old enough to decide for yourself?
Why bother getting circumcised at all? It's rarely medically necessary.

I for one would not have, it seems too painfull to endure when your older.
It's painful for infants too, they just dont' remember it.

And it really is more healthier
No it isn't.

Btw....whats with all this stuff of america doing curcimcision. I thought America would be on of the nations that actually dont do that. Oh well....i get surprised every day
I think it goes with the puritanical aspects of american society that demonize sex and like to get pissy about the sexually free aspects of american society. It was originally made popular to stop young boys from touching themselves.

Reduced risk of:
HIV, HPV, Balanitis, penile and cervical cancer, Phimosis and Paraphimosis, and urinary tract infections.
Reduced to what? From what? You sound like activists who tell ou that doing something bad "triples your risk" of some random cancer. But if that risk is going from 2 in a billion to 6 in a billion, it's still a really small risk.

Just because the risks are reduced a little bit doesn't justify mutilating your children.

People who circumcise infants should be in jail.

:rolleyes:
So we're going to start amputating our limbs and scraping off our skin to prevent cancer now?


You asked what the benefits are, I told you.

Your response is irrational emotionalism. Amputating limbs and removing our skin is not a benefit.

You asked what the benefits are, I told you.

Your response is irrational emotionalism. Amputating limbs and removing our skin is not a benefit.
But we woudln't get cancer or broken bones.

I wouldn't call my reponse irrational or emotional, I just took what you said and extrapolated it. Hell, you know, we should all just off ourselves, that would prevent us from succumbing to all sorts of diseases, wouldn't it?

And by the way, I'm the one arguing that there's no benefit to removing skin, you're the one who was trying to say it was a good thing to do, perhaps you should try to keep that straight.

Also, it looks like circumcision doesn't change the risk of getting penile cancer... http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

Reduced to what? From what? You sound like activists who tell ou that doing something bad "triples your risk" of some random cancer. But if that risk is going from 2 in a billion to 6 in a billion, it's still a really small risk.

Just because the risks are reduced a little bit doesn't justify mutilating your children.

People who circumcise infants should be in jail.

Interesting.
I didn't make any claims on anything that "triples your risk" that you accuse me of, and then you immediately make your own wild and unsupported claims on the nature of risks. Precisely what you just accused me of doing even though I did no such thing.

But we woudln't get cancer or broken bones.

I wouldn't call my reponse irrational or emotional, I just took what you said and extrapolated it. Hell, you know, we should all just off ourselves, that would prevent us from succumbing to all sorts of diseases, wouldn't it?


You didn't "just" extrapolate, you made a ridiculous and irrational strawman argument, which I might add you are continuing to make even worse with your proposal to "just off ourselves".


And by the way, I'm the one arguing that there's no benefit to removing skin, you're the one who was trying to say it was a good thing to do, perhaps you should try to keep that straight.

I stated the benefits, I didn't say that it was a "good thing to do". That is a different question entirely.
Perhaps you should try and keep that straight.

Interesting.
I didn't make any claims on anything that "triples your risk" that you accuse me of, and then you immediately make your own wild and unsupported claims on the nature of risks. Precisely what you just accused me of doing even though I did no such thing.
No. I'm pointing out that your claims of risk are meaningless without being quantified. I can't make decisions regarding risks without numbers.

The "triples the risk" point was merely an example.

Whatever the risks are, they'd have to be pretty steep before I'd consider mutilating an infant.

No. I'm pointing out that your claims of risk are meaningless without being quantified. I can't make decisions regarding risks without numbers.

The "triples the risk" point was merely an example.

Whatever the risks are, they'd have to be pretty steep before I'd consider mutilating an infant.

I made no claim that the benefits are strong enough to convince you to choose to circumcise any sons you may have.

You didn't "just" extrapolate, you made a ridiculous and irrational strawman argument, which I might add you are continuing to make even worse with your proposal to "just off ourselves".
Well, you're proposing the removal of a perfectly healthy body part to prevent future possible disease. Amputating an arm prevents potential broken arms.

I stated the benefits, I didn't say that it was a "good thing to do". That is a different question entirely.
Perhaps you should try and keep that straight.
You stated that these things were benefits, you stated things that are unproven as benefits as though they were proven benefits. You also falsely stated that these benefits would not occur if one is not circumcised as an infant.

Well, you're proposing the removal of a perfectly healthy body part to prevent future possible disease. Amputating an arm prevents potential broken arms.

Let's go with something a little closer (ie. less drastic). From what I've read, a person is much more likely to have medical problems that result in the removal of their tonsils or their appendix than their foreskin. And an infant would be far less likely to remember the ordeal of having either removed. Should we routinely remove the tonsils or the appendix from infants?

The benefits (re: HIV, anyways) are related to the lack of exposed mucous membranes. Just as an infant's skin keratinizes in response to the lack of a foreskin, an adult's skin will do so. Thus, the STD-related benefits will be the same. I've read nothing in the various studies on this subject to suggest otherwise.
Urmm...

Instead of chopping bits off, why not just slip on a condom instead?
And the hygeinic benefits are directly related to the lack of a foreskin, and the necessity of cleaning under it. Again, the benefits with a successful circumcision will be identical, as the foreskin will be gone (and you won't have to pull it back to clean) in either circumstance.
Which only takes about ten seconds, ever, so it's hardly a benefit, is it?

Urmm...

Instead of chopping bits off, why not just slip on a condom instead?

Which only takes about ten seconds, ever, so it's hardly a benefit, is it?

Congratulations on your inability to read my entire post or the other post I made only 2 or 3 above that one.

I have not been advocating infant circumcision.

Let's go with something a little closer (ie. less drastic). From what I've read, a person is much more likely to have medical problems that result in the removal of their tonsils or their appendix than their foreskin. And an infant would be far less likely to remember the ordeal of having either removed. Should we routinely remove the tonsils or the appendix from infants?

Shame on you Demp!

Think of the babies!

You monster! :p

Let's go with something a little closer (ie. less drastic). From what I've read, a person is much more likely to have medical problems that result in the removal of their tonsils or their appendix than their foreskin. And an infant would be far less likely to remember the ordeal of having either removed. Should we routinely remove the tonsils or the appendix from infants?
I don't think so, it's unnecessary surgery and it should be up to the individual to choose whether or not they want to take the risks associated with the surgery, not their parents. Aside from that, most people go through life without a problem in their tonsils or their appendix and don't need either removed anyways.

Congratulations on your inability to read my entire post or the other post I made only 2 or 3 above that one.

I have not been advocating infant circumcision.
It was a general commentary on the benefits vs. doing something better instead.

Sorry that you didn't take it well...

Let's go with something a little closer (ie. less drastic). From what I've read, a person is much more likely to have medical problems that result in the removal of their tonsils or their appendix than their foreskin. And an infant would be far less likely to remember the ordeal of having either removed. Should we routinely remove the tonsils or the appendix from infants?

they removed my youngests appendix when she was already having abdominal surgery even though there wasn't anything wrong with it......does that count?

they removed my youngests appendix when she was already having abdominal surgery even though there wasn't anything wrong with it......does that count?

Hmmmm....

That all depends on whether or not we find out down the road that the appendix actually has more of a use than we thought.... =)

hehe

But it wasn't an entire elective surgery, at least.

It was a general commentary on the benefits vs. doing something better instead.

Sorry that you didn't take it well...

It certainly seemed that you were trying to argue with me, when I haven't been advocating it in the first place. If you weren't, I apologize.

Also, it looks like circumcision doesn't change the risk of getting penile cancer... http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

Hmmm Why would I believe the integrity of their comments when they also say:

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

Kind of suggests their research might be slanted.

I don't think so, it's unnecessary surgery and it should be up to the individual to choose whether or not they want to take the risks associated with the surgery, not their parents. Aside from that, most people go through life without a problem in their tonsils or their appendix and don't need either removed anyways.

I have to add I'm in complete agreement with all of Dakini's posts on this thread.

Unneccesary surgery is pointless. I would like to think that decisions about such matters were allowed to be made by me, not taken away when I was too young to comment.

ALL body parts can get things wrong with them but removing them "just in case" will leave you with nothing left.

Hmmm Why would I believe the integrity of their comments when they also say:

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

Kind of suggests their research might be slanted.
I read on some other sites that as long as everything's kept clean foreskin doesn't raise the risk of penile cancer too... sites that didn't make statements like that...

Well, you're proposing the removal of a perfectly healthy body part to prevent future possible disease. Amputating an arm prevents potential broken arms.


Perhaps I should stop using 'strawman' as an understood shorthand, you don't seem to be familiar with it.

Your example removes the functionality of the arm entirely. That is in no way what is being presented by anyone regarding male circumcision. You are misrepresenting the argument of your opponents by posing an example that is easy to refute and pretendiong that you have actually refuted their argument, when you have not.

Also, I haven't been proposing anything, I simply stated the benfits of circumcision. I'm not personally proposing anyone be circumcised.


You stated that these things were benefits, you stated things that are unproven as benefits as though they were proven benefits. You also falsely stated that these benefits would not occur if one is not circumcised as an infant.

They are proven benefits.
I made no statement regarding uncircumcised, but, since these benefits are only stated in reference to circumcision vs. non-circumcision, then there can be no way for the benefits to occur for both. Your point is nonsense.

I read on some other sites that as long as everything's kept clean foreskin doesn't raise the risk of penile cancer too... sites that didn't make statements like that...

A neutral evaluation goes much farther then somebody talking about genital integrity.

Why spend all this effort over the males? Why not spend your effort over the FGM? People can offer debatable arguments over circumcision.

Nobody can offer arguments for the value female circumcision and yet it practiced.

Galtiana;11645504']Just to get the quote right...

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - Robert A. Heinlein

I am aware of the quote... but I wasn't quoting. Just sharing the sentiment.

I read on some other sites that as long as everything's kept clean foreskin doesn't raise the risk of penile cancer too... sites that didn't make statements like that...

Follow up. Cleaning isn't a guarantee.

My buddy had his cut at 25. His wife always had "female" problems even though he said he cleaned himself to no end.

After he was cut her issues all but disappeared.

As to the sensitivity defense. He says yes there is a little more but it's overrated. Sex is still fun without it.

Hmmmm....

That all depends on whether or not we find out down the road that the appendix actually has more of a use than we thought.... =)

hehe

But it wasn't an entire elective surgery, at least.

no it was emergency surgery, but apparently when they go poking around in there it's "procedure" now to just go ahead and take out the appendix, they didn't tell me or ask me if they could, they told me after "oh, and by the way we took out her appendix" I was so mad.......I mean not for any rational reason, but really I was pissed off.

Arent we all?

Arent we all?
No...

Your example removes the functionality of the arm entirely.

To play devil's advocate a bit, removal of the foreskin removes the functionality of the foreskin entirely. In that comparison, at least, both examples are the same. You can make an argument as to the relative necessity of both functions, but entire functionality is removed, one way or another.

They are proven benefits.

Depends on what you consider proven. Some studies have leaned one way, others have leaned the other. Usually, we consider something like that "debated", rather than "proven." Now, there are a few conclusive studies I have seen that are out there - related mainly to the relative ease of contracting a virus through mucous membranes vs. keratinized skin and the problem of poor hygeine.

I made no statement regarding uncircumcised, but, since these benefits are only stated in reference to circumcision vs. non-circumcision, then there can be no way for the benefits to occur for both. Your point is nonsense.

I think you were being confused with PW, who stated that the results of circumcision would somehow be less with childhood or adult circumcision vs. infant circumcision.

This is basically where I fall. Yes, in the same situation, it appears that an uncircumcized man might be more likely to get the HIV virus from a partner. This makes perfect sense actually - he has more permeable mucous membranes exposed. But the vast majority of the risk for HIV comes from the behavior of the man (and his partner(s)), not from whether or not he is circumcized.

A circumcized boy/man also has a decreased risk for certain types of infections. However, this risk usually boils down to hygeine issues. Many guys that I know feel uncomfortable actually washing their penises like they do the rest of their body, so they figure they'll just kind of let the soap and water from the rest of their body run over it. For a circumcized man, this might be enough. For the uncircumcized, it isn't. Of course, if we don't tell young boys that touching their penises is dirty and we make sure they clean properly....

As such, I think I would much prefer to properly teach any sons I may have (and the men in my fiance's family seem to only have Y-chromosome sperm, so a son is fairly likely when we start trying for a baby) about (a) good hygeine and (b) the risks of sex and HIV, and leave the decision of possible circumcision up to them.


As for the sex issue - I've only had sex with circumcized men, so I can't make any comparisons. But I would guess that the pleasure involved for the woman has more to do with the particular man and how good he is at it (or how willing he is to try), rather than whether or not he is circumcized.

It may be gross... but the 'clean' issue isn't actually about soap and water.

An intact foreskin provides an 'interface' where material can accumulate, and disease can be harboured... if proper cleanliness is not observed.

A circumcised penis has no such 'interface', so the material doesn't accumulate. It isn't about soap... it's about wiping material off on the inside of your boxershorts/briefs/ladies-underwear/jeans.

I agree though... stop telling the children that their bodies are the devil.

no it was emergency surgery, but apparently when they go poking around in there it's "procedure" now to just go ahead and take out the appendix, they didn't tell me or ask me if they could, they told me after "oh, and by the way we took out her appendix" I was so mad.......I mean not for any rational reason, but really I was pissed off.

That sounds odd. They didn't give a reason? When it involves children, a hospital will loose a court case most of the time no matter what. They tend to be overly cautious about doing things to them.

no it was emergency surgery, but apparently when they go poking around in there it's "procedure" now to just go ahead and take out the appendix, they didn't tell me or ask me if they could, they told me after "oh, and by the way we took out her appendix" I was so mad.......I mean not for any rational reason, but really I was pissed off.

I think it is pretty rational, actually. They performed an extra procedure for which you signed no informed consent. It is unlikely that any harm has come of it (and it was unlikely that it would), but elective medical procedures should *never* be performed without the informed consent of the patient or the patient's guardian. Even with emergency procedures, such consent should be obtained if at all possible.

The stupidity of people is not in question here. You're trying to debate policy now, not the actual health benefits (or lack thereof).

Of course it is still very much open to debate, it always will be, regardless of what studies ever 'prove'. It is an emotionally charged issue for too many people and people on both sides of it will hold to their beliefs regardless of how much evidence there ever is.

But back to my point, there is now enough evidence that circumcision helps prevent AIDS that the former President of the USA spoke about circumsion openly as a potential method to fight AIDS at this year's AIDS conference.

Clinton saying it doesn't 'prove' anything, it simply demonstrates that there is enough evidence for it to not be dismissed out of hand.

No - the issue is still very much under consideration. Reserch seems to suggest that circumcision MIGHT help the fight against AIDS... but research also suggested smoking was good for you.

Behaviour is more important. Controlling bodily materials like blood... not having sex when you have injured tissue in or near the area.

I'm not really debating policy. The evidence is by no means absolute... and that should impact the policy... I was just commenting on the fact that it is the careless use of this kind of 'research' that leads to the spread of disease... like the idea that carrying flowers protected you from the Black Death.

You asked what the benefits are, I told you.

Your response is irrational emotionalism. Amputating limbs and removing our skin is not a benefit.

It would prevent them getting infected... the same benefit you claimed?

That sounds odd. They didn't give a reason? When it involves children, a hospital will loose a court case most of the time no matter what. They tend to be overly cautious about doing things to them.
They said that it's "hospital procedure" because her scar would have been so close to an appendix scar anyway, that if they hadn't removed it, she might have been in danger later, say if her appendix ruptured and the ER doctors assumed the scar was from having it removed. :rolleyes:

I think it is pretty rational, actually. They performed an extra procedure for which you signed no informed consent. It is unlikely that any harm has come of it (and it was unlikely that it would), but elective medical procedures should *never* be performed without the informed consent of the patient or the patient's guardian. Even with emergency procedures, such consent should be obtained if at all possible.
I was really mad, we sued them for other things about how she was treated and the fact that she almost died (and required emergency surgery) because of their negligent behavior.

Perhaps I should stop using 'strawman' as an understood shorthand, you don't seem to be familiar with it.

Your example removes the functionality of the arm entirely. That is in no way what is being presented by anyone regarding male circumcision.

On the contrary - amputating an arm completely removes the functionality of that arm.

And, amputating a foreskin completely removes the functionality of the foreskin.

In terms of 'functionality' equivalence, the processes are identical.

They said that it's "hospital procedure" because her scar would have been so close to an appendix scar anyway, that if they hadn't removed it, she might have been in danger later, say if her appendix ruptured and the ER doctors assumed the scar was from having it removed. :rolleyes:


If it is 'hospital procedure', they should have informed you about it BEFORE the procedure, such that you could give consent.

If it is 'hospital procedure', they should have informed you about it BEFORE the procedure, such that you could give consent.

you know that's what I said to the surgical fellow about 30 minutes before he got fired.

A neutral evaluation goes much farther then somebody talking about genital integrity.

Why spend all this effort over the males? Why not spend your effort over the FGM? People can offer debatable arguments over circumcision.

Nobody can offer arguments for the value female circumcision and yet it practiced.

google "vulva cancer"

Every part of our body has a chance at developing something wrong with it. Cancer especially. But whatever .. people do as they see fit. I just see circumcision as uncalled for and will not snip my baby boy if and when I have one. I feel it should be avoided unless there is a medical condition that arises that the partial removal or whatever would help.

As for washing .. smegma has a purpose(especially for babies). You should'nt need to use soap .. rinsing with warm water is good enough to clean under the foreskin. I know I don't purposely soap up my clit and scrub it .. and I'm clean as can be. I soap up and wash/scrub the rest of by tail .. but on that part I just rinse it very well under running water in the shower or if I'm taking a bath it gets soaked. If anything .. using alot of soap there could cause some irritation and remove essential oils.

The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."

Funny word though. I think in one of the monty python skits they had a character named smegma. heh

They are proven benefits.
No they're not. Especially the HIV one...

A neutral evaluation goes much farther then somebody talking about genital integrity.
I didn't notice that until after linking it.

Why spend all this effort over the males? Why not spend your effort over the FGM? People can offer debatable arguments over circumcision.

Nobody can offer arguments for the value female circumcision and yet it practiced.
No one can offer valid arguments for infant male circumcision and it's practiced too. The difference is that in the western world, FGM is viewed as bad while male circumcision is ok and in some places, being uncircumcised is regarded as abnormal or bad.

Follow up. Cleaning isn't a guarantee.

My buddy had his cut at 25. His wife always had "female" problems even though he said he cleaned himself to no end.

After he was cut her issues all but disappeared.
This wasn't a discussion of female problems (although I think that if your buddy's wife was having yeast infections, he would have done well to apply some of the external cream to himself to clear it up, soap and water don't seem to kill yeast) this was a discussion of factors leading to penile cancer. Your buddy didn't get penile cancer, did he?

No one can offer valid arguments for infant male circumcision and it's practiced too.
That's just your opinion.


The difference is that in the western world, FGM is viewed as bad while male circumcision is ok and in some places, being uncircumcised is regarded as abnormal or bad.

FGM is worst then circumcision. Your efforts are better focused on it's elimination.

Are you people still at it? Sheesh. Learn to live with your penis, guys, and learn to tolerate other peoples penises. No one cares for the Circumcised Supremacy Party nor the Uncircumcised Liberty Party.

That's just your opinion.
It's also the opinion of many medical associations.

FGM is worst then circumcision. Your efforts are better focused on it's elimination.
Well, when someone on here comes along and sings the praises of FGM then you'll get the same sort of protest. Any unnecessary genital tampering without the consent of the owner of the genitals is wrong, whether it's male infants or young girls.

This wasn't a discussion of female problems (although I think that if your buddy's wife was having yeast infections, he would have done well to apply some of the external cream to himself to clear it up, soap and water don't seem to kill yeast) this was a discussion of factors leading to penile cancer. Your buddy didn't get penile cancer, did he?

Nice attempt of a dodge.

The point remains. Cleaning is not always a simple solution as you implied.

I mentioned the cream thing to him and he said she didn't use any and yet the "problems" all but disappeared.

Are you people still at it? Sheesh. Learn to live with your penis, guys, and learn to tolerate other peoples penises. No one cares for the Circumcised Supremacy Party nor the Uncircumcised Liberty Party.

Exactly. :)

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

Why is it barbaric?

Nice attempt of a dodge.

The point remains. Cleaning is not always a simple solution as you implied.

I mentioned the cream thing to him and he said she didn't use any and yet the "problems" all but disappeared.
It wasn't an attempt at a dodge, you were addressing the wrong issue.

Ugh, you don't know how yeast infections work do you? In women they can go away without treatment after mensturation. I'm saying that your friend might have wanted to try using the cream on himself before removing his foreskin. Like many infections, both partners must be treated or else they'll just reinfect each other, removing the foreskin was likely unnecessary.

Oh, and cleaning is presented as a simple method of prevention for penile cancer on a number of websites I looked at. It also prevents things like smell. It's also not a huge hassle. And again, soap and water don't kill yeast which is what your friend had, correct?

FGM is worst then circumcision. Your efforts are better focused on it's elimination.

Many of us carry torches on a number of issues.

One CAN be opposed to male-infant-circumcision AND female-genital-mutilation AND can support pro-choice AND oppose racism.... etc.

It wasn't an attempt at a dodge, you were addressing the wrong issue.

Ugh, you don't know how yeast infections work do you? In women they can go away without treatment after mensturation. I'm saying that your friend might have wanted to try using the cream on himself before removing his foreskin. Like many infections, both partners must be treated or else they'll just reinfect each other, removing the foreskin was likely unnecessary.

Just can't deal with an example where it actually helped can you?

Carry on with your Quixotic quest!

Many of us carry torches on a number of issues.

One CAN be opposed to male-infant-circumcision AND female-genital-mutilation AND can support pro-choice AND oppose racism.... etc.

:rolleyes:

Nice attempt of a dodge.

The point remains. Cleaning is not always a simple solution as you implied.

I mentioned the cream thing to him and he said she didn't use any and yet the "problems" all but disappeared.

Anecdotal evidence. I have anecdotal evidence that says women don't get infections because of an uncircumcised penis.

And, I know about my personal hygeine... you are just taking someone's word for it in your account. So - where do we stand now... maybe your 'friend' just wasn't clean enough.... or, just maybe, the infection wasn't connected to his circumcised/uncircumcised state, but some other factor.

Maybe he was plenty clean enough... but she was allergic to his soap?

:rolleyes:

Yes?

Just can't deal with an example where it actually helped can you?

Carry on with your Quixotic quest!
I am dealing with the example, by stating that it was probably overkill, one can eliminate yeast under the foreskin quite easily using yeast infection creams, if his wife had taken treatment at the same time, then they would have both been yeast-free and he wouldn't have had to undergo the surgery.

I'm not saying that it didn't help, just that it was complete overkill and unrelated to what I was discussing initially.

Oh, and it's also the only example you ever have that happened to one man, that's hardly reason to circumcise every male infant shortly after birth.

What blew me away about circumcision was the amount of nerves, nerve endings and veins that get removed with it!

" Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well. "

-----------------

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."
"Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card."
[15 quarters will fit on a 3 x 5 index card with room to spare.]



Some say being Circ may help in the prevention of HIV infection .. others say being UNcircumcised may help in the prevention of HIV infection
Summary of evidence that the foreskin and
lysozyme may protect against HIV infection (http://www.foreskin.org/lysozyme.htm)

---------------

The Use of Human Foreskins in Medical,
Pharmaceutical, and Other Commercial Enterprises (http://www.foreskin.org/fibro.htm)

---------------

It's just a highly debated topic. You can find pages for it, and even more against it.

First off, I lost the post number, but I just wanted to clarify this: Dakini, I didn't mean to accuse you of saying circumcised men are mutilated...I was responding to several other posts...sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

Let's go with something a little closer (ie. less drastic). From what I've read, a person is much more likely to have medical problems that result in the removal of their tonsils or their appendix than their foreskin. And an infant would be far less likely to remember the ordeal of having either removed. Should we routinely remove the tonsils or the appendix from infants?Actually, we used to regularly remove the tonsils untill we learned that they actually do serve a purpose. The appendix is a bit more invasive, so they normally won't take it out, except in a case like Smunkees daughter when they will already be in the area.

:)

I believe in honesty, even if it's brutal. I expect the same from others. This is why we get along. :)I prefer brutal honesty. If someone considers circumcision to be mutilation, but won't call a circumcised person mutilated to their face (or as close as we can get here) then they contradict themselves. I like consistancy as much as honesty:)



And this is good. I am 'proud' of my tattoo... not because of what it 'is', but because of what it means - to me.right there with ya.

And - that is my problem with infant circumcision... you don't get to 'choose' it. It's not even an unchosen aspect of parts of your lifestyle you DID chose... like some of my scars that are the results of 'accidents'... but 'accidents' that only happened because of where I was, or what I was doing that made them possible.ah...I completely understand. But the way I look at it is it is still a part of me. Maybe I didn't choose it, but I didn't choose my eye color either. Maybe "pride" is the wrong word for it, but the sentiment is basically the same. I am proud of myself. That entails being proud of my components. And I won't lie, I'm not exactly "ashamed" of my penis;)

Adults wanting to be circumcised? Knock yourself out! Want to do what Genesis P Orridge did, and get it literally split all the way along it's length? Go for it.*cringes* ouch.

I just don't hold with unnecessary surgeries on those we are supposed to protect... much less, for a purely cosmetic reason that matters to US, rather than what will matter to them.Part of my reasoning for wanting my sons to be is that I myself am. While, to some degree, this is strictly cosmetic, it also has to do with hygene. I have no experience or even really any clue how to go about cleaning an uncircumcised penis. There is no way I could teach my son how to do it if I have no idea myself (is that something that a father even teaches? Or is that just one of those things you figure out on your own?) I know there are other males who could teach him that, such as a doctor, but I would prefer to not go that route.



The 'god' part is in there because there are two views... but both insist on the foreskin being there 'for a reason'. Either we evolved it, or it was placed there. Either way... Little Grave didn't just wake up one morning with a hoody.yeah, I figured that was why you put the God part in.
However, there are still body parts that are vestiges of, shall we say, previous models. there are also inefficent parts. Appendix is an example of a vestige, tonsils inefficient. I would list foreskin in the inefficent category...yes, it serves a purpose. Yes, it does have flaws. I wouldn't say benefits or flaws clearly and definitively outweighs the other.


As for being an advocate... DO you advocate it? Or are you 'pro-choice'?As wth most things, wholly pro-choice. I honestly never knew there was a huge debate about this "issue" untill just a few years ago...untill that point, I figured that circumcision was the norm (I come from a Jewish family, so all my male relatives are. Additionally, I'm from America, so the vast majority of my friends are) and accepted as such.
I digress, but I still hold that the parents can make that call if they are prepared to deal with possible side effects

Myself - I 'advocate' non-circumcision for children. I think it should be a matter between an adult and their genitals. Or their god. But I repeat myself.:eek: :p

no it was emergency surgery, but apparently when they go poking around in there it's "procedure" now to just go ahead and take out the appendix, they didn't tell me or ask me if they could, they told me after "oh, and by the way we took out her appendix" I was so mad.......I mean not for any rational reason, but really I was pissed off.

I would've been too. The appendix has to have a purpose or it wouldn't be there .. like the tonsils. I always figured if nothing else.. they were parts of the body that infection could go into to keep from infecting more important parts.

I read this recently .. What function do they serve? Aren't they important?
The tonsils and the adenoids are mostly composed of lymphoid tissue, which is found thoughout the gastointestinal tract and on the base of the tongue. Lymphoid tissue is composed of lymphocytes...which are mostly involved in antibody production. Since we generally consider antibody production to be a good thing, many studies have been performed to try to clarify the importance of the tonsils. There seems to be no adverse effect on the immune status or health of patients who have had them removed. Any noticable effect has generally been positive. It appears that the tonsils and adenoids were not "designed" to effectively handle the multitude of viral infections that occur in children in an urban population. Rather, the immune system, including the tonsils and adenoids, developed during a era where the child was rarely exposed to a large number of other people and the germs they carried. It may also be that these organs are relatively more important in dealing with certain types of infections, such as worms or other parasites, that are relatively uncommon in today's society. It is clear that in many cases, the tonsils and/or the adenoids become "dysfunctional" and are more of a liability than an asset.

*skips 9 pages of thread*

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.

Hm, that's strange. I'm circumcised, and I enjoy sex a lot...and I had uncircumcised friends when I was little...I touched myself so much more than they did, it wasn't even funny.

In all honesty, even never having had my foreskin (you know, except for the brief bit of infancy before the doc took a scalpel to me, but that doesn't count), I'd say I've enjoyed sex at least as much as those people that have theirs.

And as an added bonus, I've never had to worry about the extra hygene required (I'm lazy).

ah...I completely understand. But the way I look at it is it is still a part of me. Maybe I didn't choose it, but I didn't choose my eye color either. Maybe "pride" is the wrong word for it, but the sentiment is basically the same. I am proud of myself. That entails being proud of my components.


But - wouldn't you lament the loss of an eye or a hand?


And I won't lie, I'm not exactly "ashamed" of my penis;)


No. Same here. It's got me into trouble sometimes, I'm sure... but it has also got me out of trouble a couple of times.....


*cringes* ouch.


Yeah - that was about my reaction. Hor maximum cringey-ness, you really have to see it. There I was, casually flipping through a book about tattoo-ing, piercing, scarification, etc... and there is a full page picture of Genesis and his interesting choice...

(He was the 'singer' in the seminal outfit "Throbbing Gristle"... if you really wanted to see the horroshow, I'm sure it would be online somewhere).


Part of my reasoning for wanting my sons to be is that I myself am. While, to some degree, this is strictly cosmetic, it also has to do with hygene. I have no experience or even really any clue how to go about cleaning an uncircumcised penis. There is no way I could teach my son how to do it if I have no idea myself (is that something that a father even teaches? Or is that just one of those things you figure out on your own?) I know there are other males who could teach him that, such as a doctor, but I would prefer to not go that route.


Is anything 'something a father teaches'... the answer, I guess, is 'it depends on the father'. I worked it out for myself, but my dad was of a prim generation... I'll probably sit my little boy down at some point, and give him some basic 'hints'. Really - it's not that difficult. How does one know how to wash their ears? You just kinda wash them until you think they're clean, right?

I wouldn't let my discomfort at the idea of having to have 'a talk' about it make the decision for me. After all - if your son were to be uncircumcised, and you WANT to have 'that talk'... there is no reason why you can't be the person to read around the topic, ask the doctors, etc.


yeah, I figured that was why you put the God part in.
However, there are still body parts that are vestiges of, shall we say, previous models. there are also inefficent parts. Appendix is an example of a vestige, tonsils inefficient. I would list foreskin in the inefficent category...yes, it serves a purpose. Yes, it does have flaws. I wouldn't say benefits or flaws clearly and definitively outweighs the other.


Hmmm - we assume 'vestige'... but, shouldn't we maybe consider that they are actually possibly evolutionary niches waiting to happen?


As wth most things, wholly pro-choice. I honestly never knew there was a huge debate about this "issue" untill just a few years ago...untill that point, I figured that circumcision was the norm (I come from a Jewish family, so all my male relatives are. Additionally, I'm from America, so the vast majority of my friends are) and accepted as such.
I digress, but I still hold that the parents can make that call if they are prepared to deal with possible side effects


I don't know. I have met people that were circumcised, but wish they had been given the choice, themselves. Isn't the 'fair' thing to do, to allow them that choice, once they are old enough to make that decision?


:eek: :p

I thought you'd like that. :)

Is anything 'something a father teaches'... the answer, I guess, is 'it depends on the father'. I worked it out for myself, but my dad was of a prim generation... I'll probably sit my little boy down at some point, and give him some basic 'hints'. Really - it's not that difficult. How does one know how to wash their ears? You just kinda wash them until you think they're clean, right?

I wouldn't let my discomfort at the idea of having to have 'a talk' about it make the decision for me. After all - if your son were to be uncircumcised, and you WANT to have 'that talk'... there is no reason why you can't be the person to read around the topic, ask the doctors, etc.

Don't most people wash their children in the bath when they are younger and teach them how to properly wash? I know my mother did, making sure I didn't just sit in the bath and play the *entire* time. It seems like bath time would be a good time to teach a young boy how to properly wash his penis, just as you would make sure he got behind his ears and in between his toes.

Why is it barbaric?
Because you're mutilating an infant for no reason.

There's demonstrable harm, but no demonstrable benefit.

I don't really think it's a matter of contention that circumcised men are mutilated. It's obviously the case. They had a body part, and some git mangled it.

But - wouldn't you lament the loss of an eye or a hand?to be honest, I'm not sure. I mean, of course, when it first happened and I was having to adjust, I would probably hate it...but with time? I think I would be pretty okay with it



No. Same here. It's got me into trouble sometimes, I'm sure... but it has also got me out of trouble a couple of times.....ditto that.



Yeah - that was about my reaction. Hor maximum cringey-ness, you really have to see it. There I was, casually flipping through a book about tattoo-ing, piercing, scarification, etc... and there is a full page picture of Genesis and his interesting choice...

(He was the 'singer' in the seminal outfit "Throbbing Gristle"... if you really wanted to see the horroshow, I'm sure it would be online somewhere).not gonna lie, I already googled it when you mentioned it.



Is anything 'something a father teaches'... the answer, I guess, is 'it depends on the father'. I worked it out for myself, but my dad was of a prim generation... I'll probably sit my little boy down at some point, and give him some basic 'hints'. Really - it's not that difficult. How does one know how to wash their ears? You just kinda wash them until you think they're clean, right?True...I mean, my family was never big on "the talk"...I never had a sex talk with my dad...but then there were talks about basic anatomy.

I wouldn't let my discomfort at the idea of having to have 'a talk' about it make the decision for me. After all - if your son were to be uncircumcised, and you WANT to have 'that talk'... there is no reason why you can't be the person to read around the topic, ask the doctors, etc.I tend to hate giving talks without really knowing what I'm talking about. You make a good point that I could be the one to research it, and thats definatly true. However, if a problem did arise, I really would be clueless as to what is going on...and as much as I would love to call my dad and say "your grandson has a penis problem. fix him.", I would be a bit avoidant of that date.



Hmmm - we assume 'vestige'... but, shouldn't we maybe consider that they are actually possibly evolutionary niches waiting to happen?touche...but still seemingly currently a vestige.



I don't know. I have met people that were circumcised, but wish they had been given the choice, themselves. Isn't the 'fair' thing to do, to allow them that choice, once they are old enough to make that decision?I wonder how much has to do with what we percieve as being the norm...the majority of my friends are circumcised, and think that being uncircumcised is just "weird". Honestly, if I hadn't been circumcised, I think I wouldn't want to be, just as me being circumcised makes me glad that I am.



I thought you'd like that. :)you know me well.

What blew me away about circumcision was the amount of nerves, nerve endings and veins that get removed with it!

" Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.31 The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well. "

-----------------

"A piece of skin the size of a quarter contains more than three million cells, 12 feet of nerves, 100 sweat glands, 50 nerve endings, and almost three feet of blood vessels."
"Circumcision removes a piece of skin almost equivalent to a 3 x 5 index card."
[15 quarters will fit on a 3 x 5 index card with room to spare.]



Some say being Circ may help in the prevention of HIV infection .. others say being UNcircumcised may help in the prevention of HIV infection
Summary of evidence that the foreskin and
lysozyme may protect against HIV infection (http://www.foreskin.org/lysozyme.htm)

---------------

The Use of Human Foreskins in Medical,
Pharmaceutical, and Other Commercial Enterprises (http://www.foreskin.org/fibro.htm)

---------------

It's just a highly debated topic. You can find pages for it, and even more against it.


THE BASTARDS ROBBED ME OF A BIGGER PENIS.

Don't most people wash their children in the bath when they are younger and teach them how to properly wash? I know my mother did, making sure I didn't just sit in the bath and play the *entire* time. It seems like bath time would be a good time to teach a young boy how to properly wash his penis, just as you would make sure he got behind his ears and in between his toes.

I don't know. :)

My approach to parenting has been very 'there', as has my wife's... I really don't know what most people do.

I guess I just kind of expect the worst of people.

not gonna lie, I already googled it when you mentioned it.


Scary scary, no? :eek:


True...I mean, my family was never big on "the talk"...I never had a sex talk with my dad...but then there were talks about basic anatomy.

I tend to hate giving talks without really knowing what I'm talking about. You make a good point that I could be the one to research it, and thats definatly true. However, if a problem did arise, I really would be clueless as to what is going on...and as much as I would love to call my dad and say "your grandson has a penis problem. fix him.", I would be a bit avoidant of that date.


If a 'problem' arose, you would just hit the books again, or ask a professional, wouldn't you? Foreskin, or otherwise.


touche...but still seemingly currently a vestige.


Agreed. Looks like a vestige. Quacks like a vestige.

I'm just leery about any situation where we think we know it all. :) It'd be just so damned human of us, to finally purify our bodies to the point we found out our 'vestigial' appendix was gone... and then find there was some horrible disease which is easily cured by the presence of appendices.


I wonder how much has to do with what we percieve as being the norm...the majority of my friends are circumcised, and think that being uncircumcised is just "weird". Honestly, if I hadn't been circumcised, I think I wouldn't want to be, just as me being circumcised makes me glad that I am.


Circumcision as fashion conformity? Is that something you would wish on a child?


you know me well.

:)

I guess I just kind of expect the worst of people.
Smart.

I don't know. :)

My approach to parenting has been very 'there', as has my wife's... I really don't know what most people do.

I guess I just kind of expect the worst of people.

Well, I suppose there probably are people who are terrified about washing their son's penis or showing him how to (or even mentioning it). Of course, I would argue that those sorts of people probably shouldn't be parents. *shrug*

... Many guys that I know feel uncomfortable actually washing their penises like they do the rest of their body, so they figure they'll just kind of let the soap and water from the rest of their body run over it. For a circumcized man, this might be enough. For the uncircumcized, it isn't. Of course, if we don't tell young boys that touching their penises is dirty and we make sure they clean properly....

As such, I think I would much prefer to properly teach any sons I may have (and the men in my fiance's family seem to only have Y-chromosome sperm, so a son is fairly likely when we start trying for a baby) about (a) good hygeine ...


serious question here, based on observation (and remnants of an increasingly failing memory).

genital hygiene instructions might need to be done carefully. there comes a time with a lot of teenage boys when the fact that we're told to keep something clean becomes a compelling reason to let it turn into a swamp. like, in my day some guys thought it was cool to have dirty teeth, hair and fingernails, and - look away now if you're squeamish - feet. part of it was because it proved you weren't a "jock", and part of it was a way to prove you didn't take orders from your parents. I was a jock and I was in the ocean all the time, so I didn't get into it, but I had a few friends who looked (and smelled) like they were homeless. but AFAIK guys learned to keep their genitals clean pretty quick, even if it was only because they couldn't stand the itch or because they realized no girl was going to touch them anyplace that smelled like that.

just imagine what would've happened if instead of only telling us to wash our feet and change our socks daily and brush our teeth, and instead of telling us to clean our nails and hair, they'd been spelling out how we "ought to" wash our penis, and make sure to retract the foreskin when we do, and yada yada. I have a bad feeling about the results with some guys.

just a thought. any comments?

Scary scary, no? :eek:scary is an understatement. Hell, I was considering a PA for a while, and backed down because it would hurt too much

btw, completely off topic, but did I tell you I got my nape pierced?



If a 'problem' arose, you would just hit the books again, or ask a professional, wouldn't you? Foreskin, or otherwise.Well, that would be the call to my father...he's a doctor. Comes in handy.



Agreed. Looks like a vestige. Quacks like a vestige.

I'm just leery about any situation where we think we know it all. :) It'd be just so damned human of us, to finally purify our bodies to the point we found out our 'vestigial' appendix was gone... and then find there was some horrible disease which is easily cured by the presence of appendices.did I mention my love of irony?



Circumcision as fashion conformity? Is that something you would wish on a child?haha...not exactly what I was getting at...but no, I won't be getting my son circumcised as fashion conformity.

serious question here, based on observation (and remnants of an increasingly failing memory).

genital hygiene instructions might need to be done carefully. there comes a time with a lot of teenage boys when the fact that we're told to keep something clean becomes a compelling reason to let it turn into a swamp. like, in my day some guys thought it was cool to have dirty teeth, hair and fingernails, and - look away now if you're squeamish - feet. part of it was because it proved you weren't a "jock", and part of it was a way to prove you didn't take orders from your parents. I was a jock and I was in the ocean all the time, so I didn't get into it, but I had a few friends who looked (and smelled) like they were homeless. but AFAIK guys learned to keep their genitals clean pretty quick, even if it was only because they couldn't stand the itch or because they realized no girl was going to touch them anyplace that smelled like that.

just imagine what would've happened if instead of only telling us to wash our feet and change our socks daily and brush our teeth, and instead of telling us to clean our nails and hair, they'd been spelling out how we "ought to" wash our penis, and make sure to retract the foreskin when we do, and yada yada. I have a bad feeling about the results with some guys.

just a thought. any comments?

Personally, I'd say that any teenager who fails to maintain personal hygeine as a rebellious thing deserves it when his penis rots off - and I'd tell any teenager of mine that.

Seriously though, you could always go with aversion therapy. Show him pictures of all the fun infections he can get from poor hygeine. Most teenage guys are pretty protective of their penises.

...Hell, you know, we should all just off ourselves, that would prevent us from succumbing to all sorts of diseases, wouldn't it?...

...and from having arguments like this one?

now that I'm thinking about it, that would prevent crime, end all wars, and in general do away with all tragedies. okay, let's do it. somebody please push that button.

drat. there's never a lunatic president around when you need one.

To play devil's advocate a bit, removal of the foreskin removes the functionality of the foreskin entirely. In that comparison, at least, both examples are the same. You can make an argument as to the relative necessity of both functions, but entire functionality is removed, one way or another.


The foreskin is a portion of the an appendage, that appendage being the penis.
Said appendage retains full functionality both sexually and for the elimination of urinary waste without the foreskin.

That is not comparable to the removal of an appendage and the loss of it's functionality entirely.

Behaviour is more important.

Of course it is, no one is saying otherwise.
I'm not advocating the circumcision of Africa, that is just the context that the benefits of circumcision are being talked about.

It would prevent them getting infected... the same benefit you claimed?

False analogy.
It's the prevention of infection of the penis, amongst other benefits, that is aided, not the prevention of the foreskin being infected.

On the contrary - amputating an arm completely removes the functionality of that arm.

And, amputating a foreskin completely removes the functionality of the foreskin.

In terms of 'functionality' equivalence, the processes are identical.

I'd answer this, but it would be a copy and paste of my response to Dem's Devil's Advocating on the same issue.

I am circumcised. Reason: I'm Jewish. If I had to make the choice today, I would do it, solely for religious reasons (though if anaesthesia was an option, I'd request it). And if I have a son, he will be circumcised to.

As for whether or not it's better for you, I don't know. G-d made His reasons pretty clear.

The foreskin is a portion of the an appendage,

But is a part of the body unto itself.

If I cut off a finger, my hand still works. Depending on which finger, my hand may be completely and perfectly functional for all the things I regularly use it for. However, I still would have completely lost the functionality of that finger.

I can remove a kidney without any significant loss of renal system function, but I will still have lost the functionality of that kidney.

I can pull out a fingernail, and still be able to use my finger for everything I currently use it for, but will still have lost the functionality of that fingernail.

I can remove my earlobe, but still have full function in my ear. I will still have lost the functionality of my earlobe.

And so on.....

I am circumcised. Reason: I'm Jewish. If I had to make the choice today, I would do it, solely for religious reasons (though if anaesthesia was an option, I'd request it). And if I have a son, he will be circumcised to.

So you will force your religion on your son, who might or might not choose it for himself?

What if my religion advocated me cutting the earlobes off of my children? Would you support me doing so?

Oh, and under Jewish law, FGM is almost certainly prohibited. At best, it is regarded as assault. At worst, it could be regarded as sexual assault, the punishment for which is death by stoning.

NO!!!!! No one, and I mean, NO ONE, is taking a a sharp instrument to Mr. Happy.:mad:

So you will force your religion on your son, who might or might not choose it for himself?

What if my religion advocated me cutting the earlobes off of my children? Would you support me doing so?

Hmm... interesting point.

But is a part of the body unto itself.

If I cut off a finger, my hand still works. Depending on which finger, my hand may be completely and perfectly functional for all the things I regularly use it for. However, I still would have completely lost the functionality of that finger.

I can remove a kidney without any significant loss of renal system function, but I will still have lost the functionality of that kidney.

I can pull out a fingernail, and still be able to use my finger for everything I currently use it for, but will still have lost the functionality of that fingernail.

I can remove my earlobe, but still have full function in my ear. I will still have lost the functionality of my earlobe.

And so on.....


Most of those are better analogies, now if you could add some form of benefit.
Losing a finger in no way helps prevent infection or disease of the arm, etc.

Most of those are better analogies, now if you could add some form of benefit.
Losing a finger in no way helps prevent infection or disease of the arm, etc.

Removing my fingernails would keep me from getting fungus in the nail bed or infections that might cause gangrene in the finger.

Removing my earlobe would make my ear less accessable to spider bites and such that could possibly kill me or give me an infection that could spread across my face.

Removing a kidney may lower my chances of kidney infection or kidney stones - since I'll have less area in which to get them.

*skips 9 pages of thread*



Hm, that's strange. I'm circumcised, and I enjoy sex a lot...and I had uncircumcised friends when I was little...I touched myself so much more than they did, it wasn't even funny.

In all honesty, even never having had my foreskin (you know, except for the brief bit of infancy before the doc took a scalpel to me, but that doesn't count), I'd say I've enjoyed sex at least as much as those people that have theirs.

And as an added bonus, I've never had to worry about the extra hygene required (I'm lazy).

And if you would have read the 9 pages you would have seen that what I (and others) meant was that they thought it would help, not that it actually did ;)

It takes 10 to 20 extra seconds when you shower, can't say that is a big worry.

Removing my fingernails would keep me from getting fungus in the nail bed or infections that might cause gangrene in the finger.

Removing my earlobe would make my ear less accessable to spider bites and such that could possibly kill me or give me an infection that could spread across my face.

Removing a kidney may lower my chances of kidney infection or kidney stones - since I'll have less area in which to get them.


1. I'm not going to state that is entirely false, but I don't believe that would be true.

2. LOL, are spider bites on earlobes a problem for you? Not a benefit.

3. The reverse is more likely to be true as your remaining kidney is stressed more with the increased work load.

I am, and I don't think I'm missing on much, to be honest. Sex has always been pleasurable, and I don't think I'm really missing on much sensitivity.

I'll be frank and say that an erection can be uncomfortable, but I imagine that's true of all men, cut or not.

Hell no, I'm not.

Circumcision is moronic. Why cut off a perfectly healthy, functional piece of anatomy on the basis that it might prevent a potential infection sometime in the nebulous future? That's bad medicine. Worse is doing it for religious reasons when your child might not want any part of your religion. Even worse is doing it to an infant because "everyone else has it." Is cutting off bits of a child's sex organ a fashion statement now?

I think if a boy wants to be circumcised, he can choose that when he's legally old enough to make that choice.

I think if a boy wants to be circumcised, he can choose that when he's legally old enough to make that choice.
Agreed.

So you will force your religion on your son, who might or might not choose it for himself?

What if my religion advocated me cutting the earlobes off of my children? Would you support me doing so?

Are you not trying to force your viewpoints on the child?

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.

I was referring to the reasons and potential effects.

Male/female "circumcision", reasons: cleanliness, health benefits, etc etc etc

Female/male "circumcision", potntial negative effects: pain at point of procedure, mental trauma.

It's still chopping off a part of the body. Whether you believe it's necessary or not, it's still removing part of the body, and it still has those above reasons and potential effects, whether done on a male or female.

1. I'm not going to state that is entirely false, but I don't believe that would be true.

You aren't exactly going to get fungus or an infection under a nail that isn't there, now are yoU?

2. LOL, are spider bites on earlobes a problem for you? Not a benefit.

Yes, actually. I know more than one person who has ended up getting bitten there. At least one of them almost led to an amputation due to a Staph A infection setting in. As it turns out, I know more people who have had problems with spider bites on earlobes than any type of penile problem related to the foreskin.

3. The reverse is more likely to be true as your remaining kidney is stressed more with the increased work load.

Neither kidney infections nor kidney stones are closely related to the work load of the kidney. Infections have to do with bacterial growth - which is actually generally decreased with increased flow through the kidney. Kidney stones have to do with settling of calcium, etc. - another problem decreased by increased flow.


Are you not trying to force your viewpoints on the child?

No, I'm not. Of course, I'm not trying to cut off any child's body parts because of my religion.

I'm not circumcised, no, and I don't really see why anyone would want to be. "Oh but you might get an infection!" Not if you exercise a decent level of hygeine about your wang, people.

Anyway I regard it as a completely unnecessary and disfiguring procedure which I wouldn't advocate for anyone.

No, I'm not.

Ok.

Of course, I'm not trying to cut off any child's body parts because of my religion.

Wait what? That sounds like a viewpoint. ;)

Ok.

Wait what? That sounds like a viewpoint. ;)

LOL, I didn't say I don't have a viewpoint - just that I'm not forcing it upon any children. Just like I have a viewpoint on promiscuous sex, but I'm not going out and forcing people to have it or stopping them from doing so.

I'm not cutting any body parts off of someone else for my religion. If they determine that their religion requires them to cut their own body parts off (or have someone do it for them) and they are mentally competent to make that decision, more power to them.

LOL, I didn't say I don't have a viewpoint - just that I'm not forcing it upon any children. Just like I have a viewpoint on promiscuous sex, but I'm not going out and forcing people to have it

WHY NOT?!?!?!?!

*scratches dempublicents off his list* :( ;)


or stopping them from doing so.

I'm not cutting any body parts off of someone else for my religion. If they determine that their religion requires them to cut their own body parts off (or have someone do it for them) and they are mentally competent to make that decision, more power to them.

For me it's a meh issue.

I had it done. I turned out fine. If I have a son. I will probably have it done. My wife said it was my choice.

Unless of course they show it has dire consequences. Vanity issues are nothing more then perception. More then a few girls/women have told me "It's not always the best thing to look at(be it cut or not)."

Maybe that's why the Greeks tended to focus on female nudity more. ;)

WHY NOT?!?!?!?!
I had it done. I turned out fine. If I have a son. I will probably have it done. My wife said it was my choice. Unless of course they show it has dire consequences.

It has, and this FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm) lists them.

Galtiana;11653518']It has, and this FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm) lists them.

As mentioned to Demp or was it Dakini? I tend to not bother when I read comments like this:

"Although legal protection of only girls from circumcision would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact remains that it is still widely considered to be legal in this country to mutilate a boy's genitals in the name of social custom, hygiene, religion, or any other reason. This is true despite the well documented lifelong damage that male circumcision causes each of its victims."

FGM is far worst then circumcision. I've been cut and haven't seen this lifelong damage.

You have my interest when you have a neutral analysis to the merits or demerits of it.

As mentioned to Demp or was it Dakini? I tend to not bother when I read comments like this:

"Although legal protection of only girls from circumcision would seem to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the fact remains that it is still widely considered to be legal in this country to mutilate a boy's genitals in the name of social custom, hygiene, religion, or any other reason. This is true despite the well documented lifelong damage that male circumcision causes each of its victims."

FGM is far worst then circumcision. I've been cut and haven't seen this lifelong damage.

You have my interest when you have a neutral analysis to the merits or demerits of it.
I agree-- it's not mutilation in any sense. Mutilation is far, far too strong a word for something with such minor consequences. And the stuff that site said about circumcised males having psychological issues similar to those of rape victims is just stupid.

I will tell you this: I'm circumcised, and I function quite well, thank you. A foreskin would likely improve sensitivity, but it's plenty sensitive as it is, and I'm okay with it.

Honestly, there are better causes to devote yourself to than prevention of circumcision.