Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

What do you think of circumscission?

Total: 0
2007-05-10 06:51:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

You do all realise that circumcision leads to reduced sexual sensation?

Every circumcision results in the loss of a healthy and functioning foreskin, causing detrimental changes to sexual function and reduced sexual sensation.
That completely rules it out as an option if you ask me.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-10 06:53:42)

2007-05-10 06:52:39
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6786|PNW

Null vote. You forgot: "I don't want my kid to get an infection and have his wiener fall off."
2007-05-10 06:54:03
KylieTastic
Games, Girls, Guinness
+85|6467|Cambridge, UK

Should be done only for medical reasons not religious on children - and adults can do as they want.

Null Vote - Stupid Options Next time you do a poll try to think of other answers, reasons and points of view (and don't make  the ones you have biased!)
2007-05-10 06:54:14
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6667|pimelteror.de

cospengle wrote:

Well I know a family with 3 boys, the first two were circumsised - no problems, the third wasn't... he's been to the doctor several times due to infections (poor little fella).

EDIT: And yes, they clean it.
so you think, this is a medical proof? i have my foreskin and never got any infections on my penis - is this also proof?
2007-05-10 06:57:05
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6664|Washington DC

Bertster7 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

It is funny how you refer to circumcision (yes, that's the correct spelling) as "mutilation" as if somehow this is the only modification that people make to their bodies.

  • Are tattoos also to be considered mutilation
  • Is piercing ears/nipples/bellybuttons, etc mutilation
  • Is having teeth pulled for braces considered mutilation
  • Is cutting hair or fingernails mutilation ... I mean, as the above poster so wisely observed, "If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix?"
Are tattoos also to be considered mutilation? - Yes

Is piercing ears/nipples/bellybuttons, etc mutilation? - Yes

Is having teeth pulled for braces considered mutilation? - Technically, yes I suppose it is.

Is cutting hair or fingernails mutilation? - No, it's maintenance. Foreskins don't grow back.

OrangeHound wrote:

This whole "circumcision is mutilation" can be classed as nothing other than an anti-Semite position (and I'm not Jewish), for if you lobby against this then you must also lobby against all the other things I list above ... yet, these opponents do not.

I've witnessed two circumcisions, and it is an incredibly minor "mutilation" ... one kid didn't even seem to notice ... my kids cry WAY MORE when they are getting their hair cut.
lol - Anti-Semitic?

My issues with circumcision have nothing to do with religion, although could be loosely connected. I disagree with circumcision because it is done to a child who has no say in the matter, it is similar to the disapproval I feel for those who indoctrinate their children with religious dogma from an early age.

I don't think anything should be forced upon children until they are old enough to make proper decisions of their own.
I say it is anti-Semetic because there are dozens of other physical modifications that originated from other cultures, yet this is the one that we want to go after?  Do I see a poll on this site that suggests that any other cultural modification is mutilation?


No ... and, of course we won't see one.


It is focused on one cultural tradition ... the Jewish culture/tradition.  And, if someone wants to focus on just one culture's "mutilation" and ignore all the others, then this is nothing more than a racist agenda.
2007-05-10 07:00:10
BVC
Member
+325|6710
I see no problem with it provided it is done for genuine medical reasons.

CameronPoe wrote:

There is a little bit of a double standard at play here. Some religious sects perform female cirumcisions which generally draw gasps of disgust and disdain but apparently it's alright to knife a baby's penis????
Thats because the "equal" rights movement only ever sticks up for women.

Last edited by Pubic (2007-05-10 07:09:42)

2007-05-10 07:02:05
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6534|Adelaide, South Australia

OrangeHound wrote:

Do I see a poll on this site that suggests that any other cultural modification is mutilation?


No ... and, of course we won't see one.


It is focused on one cultural tradition ... the Jewish culture/tradition.  And, if someone wants to focus on just one culture's "mutilation" and ignore all the others, then this is nothing more than a racist agenda.
What about the thread about that African girl who was/is forced to wear neck rings to stretch out her neck?
2007-05-10 07:03:08
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6781|UK

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm circumsized, its not mutiltion, it actually looks better plus it is easier to keep clean so chances of infection is lower. It's not my religion but my son will be cirscumsized. All my girlfriends have always said it looks better so I don't see why you shouldn't.
Exactly, im not religious and im circumsized, easier to clean, looks nicer, etc. Its an unnessecary piece of skin, it was used to protect against dirt etc when we lived naked, we dont any more, we have clothes...
2007-05-10 07:04:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

OrangeHound wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

It is funny how you refer to circumcision (yes, that's the correct spelling) as "mutilation" as if somehow this is the only modification that people make to their bodies.

  • Are tattoos also to be considered mutilation
  • Is piercing ears/nipples/bellybuttons, etc mutilation
  • Is having teeth pulled for braces considered mutilation
  • Is cutting hair or fingernails mutilation ... I mean, as the above poster so wisely observed, "If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix?"
Are tattoos also to be considered mutilation? - Yes

Is piercing ears/nipples/bellybuttons, etc mutilation? - Yes

Is having teeth pulled for braces considered mutilation? - Technically, yes I suppose it is.

Is cutting hair or fingernails mutilation? - No, it's maintenance. Foreskins don't grow back.

OrangeHound wrote:

This whole "circumcision is mutilation" can be classed as nothing other than an anti-Semite position (and I'm not Jewish), for if you lobby against this then you must also lobby against all the other things I list above ... yet, these opponents do not.

I've witnessed two circumcisions, and it is an incredibly minor "mutilation" ... one kid didn't even seem to notice ... my kids cry WAY MORE when they are getting their hair cut.
lol - Anti-Semitic?

My issues with circumcision have nothing to do with religion, although could be loosely connected. I disagree with circumcision because it is done to a child who has no say in the matter, it is similar to the disapproval I feel for those who indoctrinate their children with religious dogma from an early age.

I don't think anything should be forced upon children until they are old enough to make proper decisions of their own.
I say it is anti-Semetic because there are dozens of other physical modifications that originated from other cultures, yet this is the one that we want to go after?  Do I see a poll on this site that suggests that any other cultural modification is mutilation?


No ... and, of course we won't see one.


It is focused on one cultural tradition ... the Jewish culture/tradition.  And, if someone wants to focus on just one culture's "mutilation" and ignore all the others, then this is nothing more than a racist agenda.
That is because the other physical "modifications" are considered barbaric. The practice of female circumcision (which is practiced in some Islamic countries) is abhorent. Clearly male circumcision isn't as bad, but the principles are the same.

What are some other religious physical modifications that people in this forum would be familiar with?

It is being focused on because it is the most acceptable and most normal. It is therefore far more relevant to the users of this forum than the traditions of other religions which have very little impact on anyone who posts here.

You're seeing anti-semetism where there isn't any.
2007-05-10 07:07:49
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I'm circumsized, its not mutiltion, it actually looks better plus it is easier to keep clean so chances of infection is lower. It's not my religion but my son will be cirscumsized. All my girlfriends have always said it looks better so I don't see why you shouldn't.
Exactly, im not religious and im circumsized, easier to clean, looks nicer, etc. Its an unnessecary piece of skin, it was used to protect against dirt etc when we lived naked, we dont any more, we have clothes...
That's a common misconception.

What does the foreskin do?
First, the foreskin covers and protects the glans and urinary opening from abrasion, irritation, and foreign material. Second, the foreskin provides sufficient skin length to accommodate penis growth and allow for comfortable erections. Third, the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis. (Because most adult men in America were circumcised at birth, it is a common misconception that the glans is the most pleasurable part of the penis. See this page for a description of why most circumcised men seem satisfied.) A specialized ridged band of tissue encircling the tip of the foreskin contains thousands of erogenous nerve endings which provide intact men with the majority of their sexual sensation, making the foreskin vital to a man's healthy sexual response. Circumcision removes this highly erogenous tissue, resulting in a dramatic reduction in sexual sensation. Fourth, during intercourse, the intact penis glides back and forth inside its skin sheath, greatly reducing the friction between the penis and vaginal walls. Because of this, women report improved sensation and comfort with an intact penis.
2007-05-10 07:08:12
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6781|UK

Pubic wrote:

I see no problem with it provided it is done for genuine medical reasons.

CameronPoe wrote:

There is a little bit of a double standard at play here. Some religious sects perform female cirumcisions which generally draw gasps of disgust and disdain but apparently it's alright to knife a baby's penis????
Thats because the "equal" rights movement only ever sticks up for women.
It isnt bad for a man... it gives better climax. Whereas with a woman it lowers the chance of a climax.
2007-05-10 07:09:20
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Pubic wrote:

I see no problem with it provided it is done for genuine medical reasons.

CameronPoe wrote:

There is a little bit of a double standard at play here. Some religious sects perform female cirumcisions which generally draw gasps of disgust and disdain but apparently it's alright to knife a baby's penis????
Thats because the "equal" rights movement only ever sticks up for women.
It isnt bad for a man... it gives better climax. Whereas with a woman it lowers the chance of a climax.
No it doesn't. It reduces male sexual sensation. It been very well established medically.
2007-05-10 07:10:33
BVC
Member
+325|6710

Vilham wrote:

It isnt bad for a man... it gives better climax. Whereas with a woman it lowers the chance of a climax.
How does cutting off nerves increase sensation?
2007-05-10 07:12:03
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

Pubic wrote:

Vilham wrote:

It isnt bad for a man... it gives better climax. Whereas with a woman it lowers the chance of a climax.
How does cutting off nerves increase sensation?
It doesn't.
2007-05-10 07:22:41
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6565|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

PBAsydney wrote:

If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
What about the appendix?  That can only kill you and has no other use, God didn't think about that one did he?  Or a man's nipples either, pointless.

I was circumsised as an adult because I had problems with a restrictive foreskin (why am i admitting this here???) and I would recommend it to anyone.  It's cleaner, less hassle and the chicks do prefer it for some reason.
2007-05-10 07:25:49
LawJik
The Skeptical Realist
+48|6545|Amherst, MA
Cuts your risk of getting infected with AIDS by 70%...
2007-05-10 07:26:59
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

LawJik wrote:

Cuts your risk of getting infected with AIDS by 70%...
You should pay attention to the last line of that article.

Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
2007-05-10 07:28:20
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6565|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

Bertster7 wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Vilham wrote:

It isnt bad for a man... it gives better climax. Whereas with a woman it lowers the chance of a climax.
How does cutting off nerves increase sensation?
It doesn't.
I read about it before I had it done, apparently it's a mixed bag in terms of it's affects. Some men have more sensation, some have less and some don't notice a difference.  I fall into the last category.

P.S Your foreskin has nothing to do with the sensation of a orgasm it's the glands in your bellend.
2007-05-10 07:29:43
Fenris_GreyClaw
Real Хорошо
+826|6534|Adelaide, South Australia

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Pubic wrote:


How does cutting off nerves increase sensation?
It doesn't.
I read about it before I had it done, apparently it's a mixed bag in terms of it's affects. Some men have more sensation, some have less and some don't notice a difference.  I fall into the last category.

P.S Your foreskin has nothing to do with the sensation of a orgasm it's the glands in your bellend.

Bertster7 wrote:

What does the foreskin do?
First, the foreskin covers and protects the glans and urinary opening from abrasion, irritation, and foreign material. Second, the foreskin provides sufficient skin length to accommodate penis growth and allow for comfortable erections. Third, the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis. (Because most adult men in America were circumcised at birth, it is a common misconception that the glans is the most pleasurable part of the penis. See this page for a description of why most circumcised men seem satisfied.) A specialized ridged band of tissue encircling the tip of the foreskin contains thousands of erogenous nerve endings which provide intact men with the majority of their sexual sensation, making the foreskin vital to a man's healthy sexual response. Circumcision removes this highly erogenous tissue, resulting in a dramatic reduction in sexual sensation. Fourth, during intercourse, the intact penis glides back and forth inside its skin sheath, greatly reducing the friction between the penis and vaginal walls. Because of this, women report improved sensation and comfort with an intact penis.
2007-05-10 07:30:00
Sydney
2λчиэλ
+783|6858|Reykjavík, Iceland.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
What about the appendix?  That can only kill you and has no other use, God didn't think about that one did he?  Or a man's nipples either, pointless.

I was circumsised as an adult because I had problems with a restrictive foreskin (why am i admitting this here???) and I would recommend it to anyone.  It's cleaner, less hassle and the chicks do prefer it for some reason.
I'm not saying god created us, I'm not religious, just making a point to the religious ones.

Our body should be left as it is, it adapts/evolves eventually if something has to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the appendix was used to help digest grass when our ancestors were eating that.
2007-05-10 07:30:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Pubic wrote:


How does cutting off nerves increase sensation?
It doesn't.
I read about it before I had it done, apparently it's a mixed bag in terms of it's affects. Some men have more sensation, some have less and some don't notice a difference.  I fall into the last category.

P.S Your foreskin has nothing to do with the sensation of a orgasm it's the glands in your bellend.
It does.

You clearly didn't read my earlier post.
What does the foreskin do?
First, the foreskin covers and protects the glans and urinary opening from abrasion, irritation, and foreign material. Second, the foreskin provides sufficient skin length to accommodate penis growth and allow for comfortable erections. Third, the foreskin is the most sexually sensitive and pleasurable part of the penis. (Because most adult men in America were circumcised at birth, it is a common misconception that the glans is the most pleasurable part of the penis. See this page for a description of why most circumcised men seem satisfied.) A specialized ridged band of tissue encircling the tip of the foreskin contains thousands of erogenous nerve endings which provide intact men with the majority of their sexual sensation, making the foreskin vital to a man's healthy sexual response. Circumcision removes this highly erogenous tissue, resulting in a dramatic reduction in sexual sensation. Fourth, during intercourse, the intact penis glides back and forth inside its skin sheath, greatly reducing the friction between the penis and vaginal walls. Because of this, women report improved sensation and comfort with an intact penis.
2007-05-10 07:31:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

PBAsydney wrote:

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

If god created us, why would he do such an error that we have to fix? The rest of our body is so perfect (given you don't have any physical disorders)
What about the appendix?  That can only kill you and has no other use, God didn't think about that one did he?  Or a man's nipples either, pointless.

I was circumsised as an adult because I had problems with a restrictive foreskin (why am i admitting this here???) and I would recommend it to anyone.  It's cleaner, less hassle and the chicks do prefer it for some reason.
I'm not saying god created us, I'm not religious, just making a point to the religious ones.

Our body should be left as it is, it adapts/evolves eventually if something has to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the appendix was used to help digest grass when our ancestors were eating that.
I'm pretty sure it had to do with the digestion of raw meat, up until we found out it was nicer cooked.
2007-05-10 07:39:13
LawJik
The Skeptical Realist
+48|6545|Amherst, MA

Bertster7 wrote:

LawJik wrote:

Cuts your risk of getting infected with AIDS by 70%...
You should pay attention to the last line of that article.

Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
And previous studies linked the world to being flat...

The World Health Organisation recommended in 2007 that "promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men."

US just (May 07) gave Kenya $25 million for a circumcision spree to prevent AIDS..

United Nations recently (Apr 07) endorsed circumcision as a means of reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS

It is true that these AIDS stats are more for third world countries, where there is less access to clean water. But, a higher percent of AIDS/HIV cases are reported in these countries, so it applies to them the most also. So the cause of the higher level of AIDS in uncircumcised men, really only shows in uncircumcised men who also cant shower/bathe regularly.

Yummy factoid: Jones explained that the skin on the penis isn't very absorbent, except in the lining of the foreskin, where the flesh is warm and moist. Dead skin cells and oils can combine with bacteria under the foreskin and eventually congeal into smegma, a super stinky substance

Smegma = new bf2s vocab, use wisely.

Last edited by LawJik (2007-05-10 08:01:12)

2007-05-10 07:45:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6596|SE London

LawJik wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

LawJik wrote:

Cuts your risk of getting infected with AIDS by 70%...
You should pay attention to the last line of that article.

Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
And previous studies linked the world to being flat...
No they didn't. Another common misconception.

The Greeks figured out the world was round. Throughout the middle ages most text books spoke of a spherical Earth.

It's a poor example.


Just because one study shows something, doesn't necessarily mean it is true. Especially when there have been numerous other studies with contradictory results. I'm not saying the study is incorrect, but it is a little early to be jumping to any conclusions.
2007-05-10 07:48:46
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6781|UK
Isnt that exactly what you are doing Bert? Using one study to make a claim.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard