NationStates Jolt Archive

It's more like pulling out the fingernails and preventing them from growing back. Hair and nails grow back when cut, foreskin doesn't. How can you think that this is still a good analogy?

Who said anything about an anology? I never made such a thing. What I did say is that this debate about it, makes as much sense as debating in the same way about cutting hair.

Who said anything about an anology? I never made such a thing. What I did say is that this debate about it, makes as much sense as debating in the same way about cutting hair.
Except that if you give a kid a bad haircut, it will grow back and the kid will be able to change their hairstyle when they grow up. The kid can't do shit about you amputating part of his penis.

Except that if you give a kid a bad haircut, it will grow back and the kid will be able to change their hairstyle when they grow up. The kid can't do shit about you amputating part of his penis.

Ahhh I see you understand, yeah exactly in both cases it makes no sense to argue about it!

Tis because they cannot speak that they need a voice to speak for them. Why do the irreversible? Inactivism! Think of the children!

Ahhh I see you understand, yeah exactly in both cases it makes no sense to argue about it!

I see you don't understand that we can prevent future amputations. I see you've realized you don't know what you're talking about so now you're trying to pretend this about whether or not we can argue about it.

Would you it would be worth discussing if we were allowed to cut off your penis? Not something that's already happened but a choice we're going to make in the future. Should we argue about that?

What do we have your permission to discuss?

Ohhh handbags huh!

Now I never claimed this, you may claim that I did but you would be wrong.

Let's check.

For the record, I am myself circumsised, I got done when I was 18 months old, for medical reasons. So yep I do know what you are talking about.

What I am talking about is routine circumcision. What happened to you was non-routine. What you claimed was that because you had a non-routine circumcision, that you "know what I'm talking about", which routine circumcision. English - get used to it.


It is clear that you still don't get what I'm saying, so I'll try once more then I'm outa this one.

You have admitted already that if we forgo your rather strange definition of damage, you would be hard pressed to quantify what damage the removal of the foreskin does.

It is this sense of damage that I equate with the cutting of the hair, and the nails. As I have said it seems a ridiculous argument to be having in the first place, you have not swayed me simply because you have not suggested what damage occurs outside the bounds of your dubious definition.

I will ask one more time, can you tell me how the removal of the foreskin, debilitates the use of the penis, or how it effects the male in any adverse way?

No, I haven't. Try to get the people you're talking to straight. I quantify damage as the permanent denial of the use of a healthy body part, of being permanently scarred and as making an irreversible cosmetic change to my body.

It's not similar to cutting of hair because hair grows back, as do nails. It would be more similar to destroying my hair and nails.

And good thing you aren't comparing the foreskin to hair and nails. Cuz that's not what equate means or anything. Again, familiarize yourself with English, becuase this is basic stuff.

And it scars the penis, and it debilitates the use of the FORESKIN. The fact that after all this time you don't recognize this is something you should consider embarrasing, not brag about.

I'm circumcised and I would'nt have it any other way. When I: think of you poor people with a lump of revolting flesh on your penus I pity you.:(

I'm circumcised and I would'nt have it any other way. When I: think of you poor people with a lump of revolting flesh on your penus I pity you.:(

I'm tattooed and I wouldn't have any other way. When I think you people with your revolting shoulders clear of ink, I pity you.

Thanks for providing something useful to the discussion... oh, wait.

Hey now, I'm both intact and uninked, so you both just mocked me.:p

It's not a "tip", or a "lump", or a "circle". It is a whole strip of skin, flesh, probably some other cells(including undifferentiated cells, which is what they're harvesting from all those infant foreskins) that they haven't completely checked out, big enough to wrap around both your thumbs.

It's not a "tip", or a "lump", or a "circle". It is a whole strip of skin, flesh, probably some other cells(including undifferentiated cells, which is what they're harvesting from all those infant foreskins) that they haven't completely checked out, big enough to wrap around both your thumbs.

Actually, the cells most often harvested from neonatal foreskins are fibroblasts, not undifferentiated cells.

Can I let you in on a little secret?

Many men at times feel insecure about their penises. Sometimes they blame this on being circumcised. Other times they blame it on not being circumcised.

If you're upset about your penis because you AREN'T circumcised you can have that fixed. Try fixing it if you're upset because it IS. I'm fine with my circumcised penis but no way in hell would I allow any hypothetical son of mine to undergo surgery that provides negligible benefits (but sometimes - albeit rarely - results in the entire penis being sliced off).

Actually, the cells most often harvested from neonatal foreskins are fibroblasts, not undifferentiated cells.

I just remembered it was something that could be used for skin grafts and some other stuff, and it's good at healing.

I will ask one more time, can you tell me how the removal of the foreskin, debilitates the use of the penis, or how it effects the male in any adverse way?

If you have to 'ask one more time', you clearly haven't been reading the thread.

We don't have to go far to find 'uses' for a foreskin... physical protection of the glans, a barrier to prevent organisms from entering the urethra, sexual functions such as reducing copulatory friction... I'm sure I could continue.


Counter to that - what advantage is gained from mutilation? Adherence to archaic ritual? Speculative (and still questioned) protection against some diseases, claimed through a mechanism of keratinisation?

Cutting bits off children is weird.

Especially when they cannot respond in any way except cry and flail.

I am. Jewish.

Link from: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html

Human Rights Context

Human rights is not a zero-sum game. The recognition of the harm of MGM in no way trivializes FGM. It is clear that most if not all forms of FGM practiced in the world today are more brutalizing, invasive and dangerous than the sterile, technologically sophisticated and surgically simpler practice of western medical circumcision. But the cultural and power dynamic, the disregard for the rights of the victim, and the senseless barbarity are the same, as is the unconscious social objective: the control and forcible diminution of young people's sexuality. FGM is committed by older women against younger women, MGM is committed by older men against younger men. Genital mutilation is an equal opportunity, self-perpetuating, intergenerational form of sexual abuse.

Seriously, check out the first site. It's really informative.

1 last bump because Bottle never responded to my post about function.

1 last bump because Bottle never responded to my post about function.
Just let it die. I left this thread for a reason.

Just let it die. I left this thread for a reason.

Just let it die, like that useless bit of flappy skin around a mans cock?:eek:

Just let it die, like that useless bit of flappy skin around a mans cock?:eek:

If the thread is naturally going to continue, why cut it off?

:p

"Useless". Right.:rolleyes:

"Useless". Right.:rolleyes:

Ohhh word association huh.

Usless, right, ummm left!:D

You may consider it useless, but I have pointed out time and again that it does in fact have its uses, and there is no humane reason why it should continue to be a routine procedure performed upon infants.

I'm circumcised, and it doesn't bother me at all. I have no opinion on the issue, really.

The recognition of the harm of MGM in no way trivializes FGM. It is clear that most if not all forms of FGM practiced in the world today are more brutalizing, invasive and dangerous than the sterile, technologically sophisticated and surgically simpler practice of western medical circumcision.

Calling it "MGM" is a clear attempt to place it on the same level by association. This is like calling abortion "Pre-Birth Murder" in an attempt to associate it with "murder." Pure propaganda tactic, been repeated many times in this thread, and still continues to fail.

But the cultural and power dynamic, the disregard for the rights of the victim, and the senseless barbarity are the same, as is the unconscious social objective: the control and forcible diminution of young people's sexuality. FGM is committed by older women against younger women, MGM is committed by older men against younger men.

This is pure horseshit. FGM is specifically designed to STOP woman's sexuality, period. Hence the sewing-up of the vaginal orifice, hence the utter removal of the clitoris.

On the contrary, circumcision is not. It doesn't limit anyone's sexuality. I have a circumcision; doesn't mean anyone has "controlled" or dominated my "sexuality." The cultural and power dynamic is NOT the same and again, this type of argument seems dependent on blind acceptance that FGM is the same as circumcision.

Genital mutilation is an equal opportunity, self-perpetuating, intergenerational form of sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another.

Just because something involves the genitals doesn't make it a sexual act.

Get a new argument other than "ITS CHILD ABUSE!" or "ITS JUST LIKE FGM!" because it's tiring to shred those ones all the time.

Calling it "MGM" is a clear attempt to place it on the same level by association. This is like calling abortion "Pre-Birth Murder" in an attempt to associate it with "murder." Pure propaganda tactic, been repeated many times in this thread, and still continues to fail.



This is pure horseshit. FGM is specifically designed to STOP woman's sexuality, period. Hence the sewing-up of the vaginal orifice, hence the utter removal of the clitoris.

On the contrary, circumcision is not. It doesn't limit anyone's sexuality. I have a circumcision; doesn't mean anyone has "controlled" or dominated my "sexuality." The cultural and power dynamic is NOT the same and again, this type of argument seems dependent on blind acceptance that FGM is the same as circumcision.



Sexual abuse (also referred to as molestation) is defined as the forcing of undesired sexual acts by one person to another.

Just because something involves the genitals doesn't make it a sexual act.

Get a new argument other than "ITS CHILD ABUSE!" or "ITS JUST LIKE FGM!" because it's tiring to shred those ones all the time.

If you look up the history of circumcision in the USA you'll find its sole purpose of having been implemented was to stop boys from masturbating. So actually, the whole purpose is to stop proper male sexual function, of course it doesn't do a great job of it, but they probably figured they couldn't cut the whole dick off cause he had to have kids eventually.

If you look up the history of circumcision in the USA you'll find its sole purpose of having been implemented was to stop boys from masturbating.

I find no source that says that was the sole purpose of being implemented, and certainly not a main reason anyone gets it today.

So actually, the whole purpose is to stop proper male sexual function, of course it doesn't do a great job of it

It doesn't do a job of it at all. Unlike FGM.

Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions)

WTF??? 'Normal' circumcision (foreskin removal) shouldn't have anything to do with AIDS prevention... methinks you're confusing foreskins with condoms. :p

I find no source that says that was the sole purpose of being implemented, and certainly not a main reason anyone gets it today.

Main reason male children get it in USA and muslim countries is tradition, nothing more, nothing less.

WTF??? 'Normal' circumcision (foreskin removal) shouldn't have anything to do with AIDS prevention... methinks you're confusing foreskins with condoms. :p

Nope, it's true

Nope, it's true

Proof? And a scientific source for preference.

Proof? And a scientific source for preference.

You think this thread has 750+ posts for nothing? Why should I post new evidence when it's already in here?

You think this thread has 750+ posts for nothing? Why should I post new evidence when it's already in here?

Because..."this thread has 750+ posts". :eek:

LOL, Bann-ed has it right - I jumped from first page to the last for a reason. :p

If you know where in there the evidence is, please provide the page number. ^_^

Proof? And a scientific source for preference.

There have been a few studies in Africa that demonstrated a statistically significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in HIV infection. It makes biological sense, considering that viruses pass more easily through mucous membranes, and an uncut man has a larger surface area of mucous membrane on his penis.

However, similar studies in countries where safe sex is more prevalent have generally found no significant difference, suggesting that condom use goes so much further in the prevention of HIV/AIDS that the contribution from circumcision is no longer detectable.

You can go to www.pubmed.org, do a search for "HIV circumcision" and find quite a few articles.

i am a catholic and so are my parents.. I wasn't uncircumcised just for a matter of interest. I heard it was a good think to do. It is a lot easier to clean, and if you think carefully, if the baby had never felt anything there (for obvious reasons), what is he supposed to miss in a older age? If a guy noticed that when he was older, he probably would not do it because of the pain and the possible results in his sexual life, even though he wanted it really bad.
About the feelings in that area, i think it would be more likely to feel a lot in the beginning, then, as the guy gets used to it, it goes back to the way it was.
Pretty much like masturbation, in the beginning a guy loses control about his legs. Then, it is not that big deal.

However, similar studies in countries where safe sex is more prevalent have generally found no significant difference, suggesting that condom use goes so much further in the prevention of HIV/AIDS that the contribution from circumcision is no longer detectable.

Thank you, this is what I thought (and correctly so!) I knew. :)

i am a catholic and so are my parents.. I wasn't uncircumcised just for a matter of interest. I heard it was a good think to do. It is a lot easier to clean, and if you think carefully, if the baby had never felt anything there (for obvious reasons), what is he supposed to miss in a older age?

A piece of foreskin. A permanent mark of his parents, either done for religious reasons or because they thought their little baby boy would have unprotected sex well before he was able to decide things for himself.

Is this still going? Good grief!

Is this still going? Good grief!
Y'know, my GP told me a few weeks ago I might need a circumcision, and I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be ironic if the circumcision thread came back' when I went on NS that evening. And today - when I'm going to the consultant - it does.

Creepy.

Let's see.

1. Removing the foreskin removes stuff that produces lubrication(why do you think oral sex is so prevalent? Because the natural lubrication is gone).

2. The foreskin acts as a buffer, preventing the back of the glans from hooking in the vaginal channel, which causes pain/irritation.

3. It leaves the glans constantly exposed, making it lose sensitivity and roughening the skin.

4. It removes the nerves immediately behind the glans on the shaft, causing the body to "compensate" by trying for the nerves on the rest of the penis. Unfortunately, tests have shown that the nerves on the shaft are more "pressure" and less "touch" influenced(contrast the skin on your lips vs the upper palate by touching your tongue tip to them. The skin on the lips responds to the lightest touches, while the upper palate requires more pressure). This leads to circumcised males taking much longer strokes, which means they pull out almost all the way, before going back in. This exposes whatever vaginal secretions have attached themselves to the shaft, causing them to evaporate, which dries out the female partner sooner.

5. It tightens the penis. Normally, the amount of blood that flows in, is enough to make the shaft "solid", but it's more "firm, yet soft", sort of like one's fingers. Removing the foreskin tightens the shaft, pulling the glans backwards, which means it becomes harder when erect, more like a fingertip. Nobody, not even your doctor(but maybe your geneticist) can tell you just how much your foreskin will expand during puberty.

6. It shrinks the penis. Common sense will tell you this easily. The foreskin adds both girth and length to the penis. When flaccid, it's a double layer of skin. When erect, it stretches to almost twice this length.

Is that enough "loss of sexual function" for you? I could add "associates the penis with pain", but that is somewhat more subjective.

Edit: Newer Burmecia: Is it "for curing phimosis"? Because if so, gentle stretching in a warm bath, or some cremes(bimethodiosone or something like that) can actually fix it without resorting to taking a knife to your manhood.

Lets see:

Let's see.

1. Removing the foreskin removes stuff that produces lubrication(why do you think oral sex is so prevalent? Because the natural lubrication is gone).

While true it does not mean that the lubrication from the female does not work.



2. The foreskin acts as a buffer, preventing the back of the glans from hooking in the vaginal channel, which causes pain/irritation.

Which may be true but I have not noticed this myself.


3. It leaves the glans constantly exposed, making it lose sensitivity and roughening the skin.

Total rubbish. If just exposure to the air would cause some form of lessening in the nerves in the skin then you would expect you to have no feeling in the face huh! The skin on the shaft and the head remain baby soft also.


4. It removes the nerves immediately behind the glans on the shaft, causing the body to "compensate" by trying for the nerves on the rest of the penis. Unfortunately, tests have shown that the nerves on the shaft are more "pressure" and less "touch" influenced(contrast the skin on your lips vs the upper palate by touching your tongue tip to them. The skin on the lips responds to the lightest touches, while the upper palate requires more pressure). This leads to circumcised males taking much longer strokes, which means they pull out almost all the way, before going back in. This exposes whatever vaginal secretions have attached themselves to the shaft, causing them to evaporate, which dries out the female partner sooner.

What how does it do that? Cutting of one bit of skin destroys the nerves in another, none attached, but physically closer bit of skin, how? I don't find myself needing to pull almost all of the way out, and if I do it is for reasons other than what you suggest, also if the 'hooded' man done the same are you saying that a fraction of a seconds exposer to the air would cause this evaporation?



5. It tightens the penis. Normally, the amount of blood that flows in, is enough to make the shaft "solid", but it's more "firm, yet soft", sort of like one's fingers. Removing the foreskin tightens the shaft, pulling the glans backwards, which means it becomes harder when erect, more like a fingertip. Nobody, not even your doctor(but maybe your geneticist) can tell you just how much your foreskin will expand during puberty.

6. It shrinks the penis. Common sense will tell you this easily. The foreskin adds both girth and length to the penis. When flaccid, it's a double layer of skin. When erect, it stretches to almost twice this length.

Come on make you mind up. Either it makes it harder(more blood, make the thing bigger) or it makes it smaller(somehow?) You can't have it both ways.

Yes an un-hooded penis typically gets harder, because it has had its coat removed and so nowt restricts the blood flow, but common sense tells you this make the penis bigger.


Is that enough "loss of sexual function" for you? I could add "associates the penis with pain", but that is somewhat more subjective.

Loss of sexual function? Bwhahah.
You are plain wrong on most of these points, try harder.

While true it does not mean that the lubrication from the female does not work.

Obviously, if there's more lubrication from both parties, everything flows smoother. Are you seriously suggesting that lubrication must all come from the female?

Which may be true but I have not noticed this myself.

I can't speak from experience, but the foreskin itself glides over the the back of the glans, again, improving the smoothness of the movement.

Total rubbish. If just exposure to the air would cause some form of lessening in the nerves in the skin then you would expect you to have no feeling in the face huh! The skin on the shaft and the head remain baby soft also.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said constant exposure. That includes being exposed to the rough fabric of your briefs/boxers/jeans/whatever.

What how does it do that? Cutting of one bit of skin destroys the nerves in another, none attached, but physically closer bit of skin, how?

Where did I say that? I said that cutting off the foreskin removes the myriad nerves within the double layer of it, which of course, becomes part of the length of the shaft itself when erect(as the foreskin unfolds over the shaft).

I don't find myself needing to pull almost all of the way out, and if I do it is for reasons other than what you suggest, also if the 'hooded' man done the same are you saying that a fraction of a seconds exposer to the air would cause this evaporation?

An intact man uses shorter strokes, because if one attempts to thrust all the way in, there is a good chance he will experience pain, as the foreskin attaches to the glans by the frenulum. That works as an injury warning mechanism. Granted, the only way one can compare the differences is either from experience, or to watch some videos to compare. However, the shorter strokes would naturally expose less lubrication to the air to evaporate.

Come on make you mind up. Either it makes it harder(more blood, make the thing bigger) or it makes it smaller(somehow?) You can't have it both ways.

Yes an un-hooded penis typically gets harder, because it has had its coat removed and so nowt restricts the blood flow, but common sense tells you this make the penis bigger.

Harder != bigger. The circumcised penis is harder because it has to contain the same amount of blood(that the body would have put in during arousal) within a smaller mass of flesh. The intact penis is thicker, because it has more cells with which to contain the blood.

Loss of sexual function? Bwhahah.
You are plain wrong on most of these points, try harder.

I am afraid that you are the one who needs to try harder.

Obviously, if there's more lubrication from both parties, everything flows smoother. Are you seriously suggesting that lubrication must all come from the female?

Not all. I said only that lack of natural lubrication from the male makes not a bit of difference, as the lubrication provided by the female is enough. In short it don't matter, what you say about male lubrication is(like the removal of the foreskin) a non issue.


I can't speak from experience, but the foreskin itself glides over the the back of the glans, again, improving the smoothness of the movement.

And again, it matters not a bit.



Don't put words in my mouth. I said constant exposure. That includes being exposed to the rough fabric of your briefs/boxers/jeans/whatever.

Words in your mouth? Okay then how much feeling has the skin on your back lost over the years? I mean that is pretty much in constant contact with rubbing cloth.


Where did I say that? I said that cutting off the foreskin removes the myriad nerves within the double layer of it, which of course, becomes part of the length of the shaft itself when erect(as the foreskin unfolds over the shaft).

You said that removing the foreskin '..removes the nerves immediately behind the glans on the shaft'

Looking at my penis I can see that the foreskin was attached on the underside of the shaft where the frenelum is, but on the top just behind the glans? Nope not at all.

So what you say here, is just plain wrong, I can see no scar, no scar tisusse that would indicate to me that a portion of shaft and therefore my nerves from my glans at the top of my shaft is missing. Besides, I have lots of feeling there, so what the hell are you talking about?



An intact man uses shorter strokes, .....snip

Bwhahah what rubbish. Most men would use a verity of techiqies, wouldn't you say?



Harder != bigger. The circumcised penis is harder because it has to contain the same amount of blood(that the body would have put in during arousal) within a smaller mass of flesh. The intact penis is thicker, because it has more cells with which to contain the blood.

I don't know if you are correct here, but it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that the foreskin itself is also pumped full of blood during an erection? I don't think that is true,but I really don't know.


I am afraid that you are the one who needs to try harder.

Not really, as we already know I am circumsied and thus harder!;)

Not all. I said only that lack of natural lubrication from the male makes not a bit of difference, as the lubrication provided by the female is enough. In short it don't matter, what you say about male lubrication is(like the removal of the foreskin) a non issue.[quote]

It is in fact an issue, in so far as that it existed before, and now it doesn't.

[quote]And again, it matters not a bit.

And you can compare it because you were intact before then?;)

Words in your mouth? Okay then how much feeling has the skin on your back lost over the years? I mean that is pretty much in constant contact with rubbing cloth.

Worlds of difference. The back of most animals is tougher, and has far fewer nerves than a penis, probably even in absolute amounts, not even "nerves per square inch".

You said that removing the foreskin '..removes the nerves immediately behind the glans on the shaft'

Looking at my penis I can see that the foreskin was attached on the underside of the shaft where the frenelum is, but on the top just behind the glans? Nope not at all.

So what you say here, is just plain wrong, I can see no scar, no scar tisusse that would indicate to me that a portion of shaft and therefore my nerves from my glans at the top of my shaft is missing. Besides, I have lots of feeling there, so what the hell are you talking about?

Lucky you. Many circumcised mens' penis show very obvious differences in skin colouration, and you can actually see a line(not always a straight one either, indicating jagged cutting) on the shaft. Again, this is not about whether you can "feel", but about different levels of feeling. For example, squeeze your elbow skin. You can feel the pressure of your fingers, but unless you actively try, not much pain, right? Now, do the same with your fingertip. Squeeze the pad between finger and thumb. Hell, do both experiments, with and without fingernail.

Bwhahah what rubbish. Most men would use a verity of techiqies, wouldn't you say?

I admit, this one I got off a website, but they did have video evidence of both.

I don't know if you are correct here, but it seems to me that what you are suggesting is that the foreskin itself is also pumped full of blood during an erection? I don't think that is true,but I really don't know.

Well, I have looked at my own, and I can see quite a few veins and arteries, in both forms. Circumcisions are of course, not all equal, so some are more drastic than others(eg, removing the whole frenulum as well), but for some, you can actually see where the blood vessel just terminates.

Not really, as we already know I am circumsied and thus harder!;)

Harhar. I'm just saying though, we're both speaking from our own experiences, I guess, but the fact remains, that the original purpose was to curb masturbation, and the practice continues simply because "it's tradition", or "I want my son to look like me.". Which reminds me:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/looklike.gif

;)

the fact remains, that the original purpose was to curb masturbation

You keep saying this and it keeps not being true.

And even if true, it's quite irrelevant. The original purpose of axes might have been to chop unfriendly cave person's heads off; that doesn't mean owning an axe means you have the same inclination.

You keep saying this and it keeps not being true.

Really now? Plenty of people in the US have admitted that the reason to circumcise was to curb masturbation. Hell, it was recommended as a "cure" for excessive masturbation.