# Circumcision?



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Is this an inappropriate topic?  Maybe.  Whatever.

A couple of my lady friends and I have been arguing over this, and since my male sexual conquests are understandably limited and I have few male friends that I can ask this without being looked at like a total weirdo, I don't really know much about this other than stats my friend googled on her iPhone while we were at a bar and then loudly announced to the rest of the customers.

Uh.

So anyway, what I was saying was, we were wondering exactly how many guys are actually circumcised these days.  Apparently numbers are going down.  Also, apparently a lot of guys don't like it.  My girlfriend and I were discussing it, and she said she'd want our hypothetical son circumcised, whereas I (halfheartedly) disagreed, since I feel like mutilating an infant without their consent is the stuff of questionable ethics.  But I am uninformed, as I said.

OPINIONS?!


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Aug 12, 2012)

Hm. There doesn't seem to be a 'I'm not Circumcised, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever' option.

Anyway, yeah. I'm not circumcised, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 12, 2012)

So this _isn't_ about Kimmerset, right?

Also no. It doesn't seem to be as popular in the UK as it is in the US. No idea why. I've never understood the point.


----------



## Aidy (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm pretty sure there's no health benefits that come with it. Mainly just for aesthetic purposes, but I'm probably wrong.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak, I think I'm gonna luv you...

Anywho, I be what them thur street folk call "cut". Eh, I've never known what it's like to be, you know, uncut. I've heard tale it makes it easier to clean and that doctors back in my day did for that reason; however, you always hear rumors that uncut guys get more stimulation from their foreskin during sexual activity...(as I don't much care for sex, I won't shed a tear.)

I've been around the block (on the internet atleast) and some ppl luv cut, some uncut, some don't care as long as its there. I'm just glad they do it when you're a baby so you don't remember the pain. Some guys get cut later on in life, and I can imagine that hurts like all hell. So I'll go with circumcised and would recommend it for health issues I suppose.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm circumcised and honestly I couldn't give much of a fuck one way or the other. I don't think it's really affected anything.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> Hm. There doesn't seem to be a 'I'm not Circumcised, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever' option.


Whenever I put a "I have no opinion" option in a poll, it gets flooded, and that does not help me.

PICK A SIDE, PEOPLE.



LizardKing said:


> So this _isn't_ about Kimmerset, right?


No, it's not.  I only vaguely remember that entire affair as it is.  XD


> Also no. It doesn't seem to be as popular in the UK as it is in the US. No idea why. I've never understood the point.



I noticed that as well.  Additionally, apparently it's also less popular in Canada than the US just because it's not covered by their national healthcare coverage or whatever, which amused me.  "What, I have to pay to snip off a bit of my infant son's genitalia?  Fine, I guess we'll skip it then."

I think Americans are just weird.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Somebody up there doesn't have a penis. I hope to God that is going to be the majority...otherwise, we got problems...


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Aug 12, 2012)

There needs to be an option for "I have no idea." And I'm sure as hell not about to ask my parents about that.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

i like uncut. not only is it fun to yank on foreskin and see an angry one eyed turtle necked googly monster hanging around a guys legs i think if you are born that way naturally and not deformed why cut it off? wtf did it do to you? it tried to keep your junk warm, you should feel bad. shame >:V


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

The only advantage being circumcised provides is not having to pick wayward pubes out of your foreskin at times.

Also I imagine it's really fucking hard to fap without a foreskin.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> There needs to be an option for "I have no idea." And I'm sure as hell not about to ask my parents about that.



Wait, what?  You don't know if you've been circumcised?

Ah, I get it.  You're fucking with me.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> Wait, what?  You don't know if you've been circumcised?
> 
> Ah, I get it.  You're fucking with me.



How would I know? They never showed slides in sex ed "This is what a cut penis looks like, this is what an un-cut penis looks like." As far as I know, my penis was always like this.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> The only advantage being circumcised provides is not having to pick wayward pubes out of your foreskin at times.
> 
> *Also I imagine it's really fucking hard to fap without a foreskin*.



Maybe they get creative? *shrug*

Edit: Someone get Gr8ful a diagram...


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> How would I know? They never showed slides in sex ed "This is what a cut penis looks like, this is what an un-cut penis looks like." As far as I know, my penis was always like this.


...

Do you have a foreskin?

I mean, I don't have a penis, but I feel like this is fairly simple.  Don't make me break out Google Images.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Aug 12, 2012)

Okay, now this thread is starting to make me feel uncomfortable. Not posting here anymore.


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> ...
> 
> Do you have a foreskin?
> 
> I mean, I don't have a penis, but I feel like this is fairly simple.  Don't make me break out Google Images.



Some ASCII art would probably do. Or some artwork from Dune.

Also I fixed your double-post.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 12, 2012)

It's a Jewish tradition that got passed on.  Also done for sanitary reasons.  I'm not gunna say anything about myself cuz I feel I don't need to talk about my junk to strangers.  It's just weird.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> Maybe they get creative? *shrug*



Doesn't matter anyway, the foreskin works in magical ways to maximise the sensitivity of one's tool. It is rich with nerve endings, and there is a natural sliding motion always provided, which is self-explanatory. 

It also retains moisture, hence why circumsized penises look drier than their uncircumsized counterparts. Also it protects the head of the cock from rubbing against fabric, causing the penis to gradually lose its sensitivity (a matter of like, years, but it still counts).



Nylak said:


> ...
> 
> Do you have a foreskin?
> 
> I mean, I don't have a penis, but I feel like this is fairly simple.  Don't make me break out Google Images.



Are you about to ask him to show you or summat


----------



## Bliss (Aug 12, 2012)

Naturally parents should decide what is best for their children. Non-medical genital mutilation included! :V



Nylak said:


> I think Americans are just weird.


See, you guys have something in common with the Muslims!


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> Okay, now this thread is starting to make me feel uncomfortable. Not posting here anymore.


I am just so confused right now.



LizardKing said:


> Also I fixed your double-post.


Thank you, scaleyfacedear.  



Gibby said:


> Are you about to ask him to show you or summat


I wasn't going to go there, but that would totally make the mugshots thread like 20 times more entertaining.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I wasn't going to go there, but that would totally make the mugshots thread like 20 times more entertaining.



We will call it 

The Knobshots Thread


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> We will call it
> 
> The Knobshots Thread



I am all about this idea right now.

Uh.

But I lack the equipment necessary to create it, so unless you want me to post pictures of my dogs' junk, someone else is gonna have to man up and start it.    I'M SO DISAPPOINTED.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I am all about this idea right now.
> 
> Uh.
> 
> But I lack the equipment necessary to create it, so unless you want me to post pictures of my dogs' junk, someone else is gonna have to man up and start it.    I'M SO DISAPPOINTED.



K im gonna use a really expensive camera to take knobshots with focus/background blur an' everything switched on.

It will also be in black and white, ultra high resolution, and have my signature on it somewhere in the corner.

Is there anything you want me to write on it for you?

"To the ladies of FAF" on the top would be a great start, with all your names written on the shaft, with "love, Gibby" on the nuts.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

Uh, I think uncut looks better, does that count?
It sucks that some boys don't get to choose though. Their parents do.


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> We will call it
> 
> The Knobshots Thread



One dogcock shows up by post three and everybody bails.

Also, I'm dickless and have no opinion, but I think I'd like to have the choice between the two, if I did have a dick.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> K im gonna use a really expensive camera to take knobshots with focus/background blur an' everything switched on.
> 
> It will also be in black and white, ultra high resolution, and have my signature on it somewhere in the corner.
> 
> ...


All of this sounds absolutely perfect.  Do it just like that.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> All of this sounds absolutely perfect.  Do it just like that.



Well too bad, there's so many of you damn women on this forum

my knob isn't long enough to accommodate all of you at once

Though if my pen is really small, I can still try.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> my knob isn't long enough to accommodate all of you at once


I can sell you some pills to help you with that.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Doesn't matter anyway, the foreskin works in magical ways to maximise the sensitivity of one's tool. It is rich with nerve endings, and there is a natural sliding motion always provided, which is self-explanatory.
> 
> It also retains moisture, hence why circumsized penises look drier than their uncircumsized counterparts. Also it protects the head of the cock from rubbing against fabric, causing the penis to gradually lose its sensitivity (a matter of like, years, but it still counts).



Well, now that moisture thing makes sense...and God knows the fabric thing is why I hate jeans, I hope cargos won't look too inappropriate at like age 30+  

I guess they both have their strengths and weaknesses. The funny part is us gents hardly get a say in the matter, (unless you're one of the folks that are uncut but wanna be circumcised. Currently, at 0% but the thread is young of course.

Did the resident prude infect everyone? Honestly, we're just talking about a penis...in a mostly non-sexual, intelligent matter. (It's like that taboo about periods) Take a trip to Sofurry and see what results you'll get from this discussion. Hint: It ain't gonna be pretty...


----------



## Heliophobic (Aug 12, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> How would I know? They never showed slides in sex ed "This is what a cut penis looks like, this is what an un-cut penis looks like." As far as I know, my penis was always like this.



If you're not a prude, just google it.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Well too bad, there's so many of you damn women on this forum
> 
> my knob isn't long enough to accommodate all of you at once
> 
> Though if my pen is really small, I can still try.




wanna borrow my dick? its so big and pretty i sometimes slap a leash on it and walk it around the block.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I can sell you some pills to help you with that.



i

will need those

*sobs*



Butterflygoddess16 said:


> Well, now that moisture thing makes sense...and God knows the fabric thing is why I hate jeans, I hope cargos won't look too inappropriate at like age 30+
> 
> I guess they both have their strengths and weaknesses. The funny part is us gents hardly get a say in the matter, (unless you're one of the folks that are uncut but wanna be circumcised. Currently, at 0% but the thread is young of course.
> 
> Did the resident prude infect everyone? Honestly, we're just talking about a penis...in a mostly non-sexual, intelligent matter. (It's like that taboo about periods) Take a trip to Sofurry and see what results you'll get from this discussion. Hint: It ain't gonna be pretty...



yeah we should totally talk about genitals more often, it is a good topic

we're generally pretty mature about it as you can see

lolpenis



dinosaurdammit said:


> wanna borrow my dick? its so big and  pretty i sometimes slap a leash on it and walk it around the  block.



OH DD BABY GIVE ME YOUR DICK


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> wanna borrow my dick? its so big and pretty i sometimes slap a leash on it and walk it around the block.


[enter witty comment regarding dachshunds here]


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> lolpenis



NO DON'T, YOU'LL ANGER THE BAN GODS!

oh, and

we shall henceforth refer to smaller dongs as "gentleman's schlong"s, regarding the fact that a good deal of older art depicts heroic figures as hardly endowed; since such men were considered to be gentle in bed. 

They're not small to be scoffed at, they're just _gentlemanly_.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Littlerock said:


> NO DON'T, YOU'LL ANGER THE BAN GODS!


Anyone who bans or infracts anyone in this thread is openly admitting that they have a tiny and unattractive penis and is clearly just threatened by the discussion.

That's right.  I said it.  WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT MODS.  :3


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Littlerock said:


> we shall henceforth refer to smaller dongs as "gentleman's schlong"s, regarding the fact that a good deal of older art depicts heroic figures as hardly endowed; since such men were considered to be gentle in bed.
> 
> They're not small to be scoffed at, they're just _gentlemanly_.



When in doubt, pinky out.

*sips tea*



Nylak said:


> Anyone who bans or infracts anyone in this thread  is openly admitting that they have a tiny and unattractive penis and is  clearly just threatened by the discussion.
> 
> That's right.  I said it.  WHAT YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT MODS.  :3



Zeke's black, so she's pretty hung. 

be careful


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Littlerock said:


> NO DON'T, YOU'LL ANGER THE BAN GODS!
> 
> oh, and
> 
> ...




i scoff at you. my downstairs is so big the trojan horse wasnt a horse, they were describing my manlyness


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> yeah we should totally talk about genitals more often, it is a good topic
> 
> we're generally pretty mature about it as you can see
> 
> lolpenis



This thread is sig gold...

We need a thread about periods so us girls don't feel left out...It could be called "Monsoon or Desert?" Very tasteful I think.

Also, this is relevant I believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B4suxQVUAQ


----------



## Littlerock (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> When in doubt, pinky out.
> 
> *sips tea*



Now I'm tempted to google images of dicks tattooed with realistic fingernails _THANKS GIBBY MY COMPUTER IS IN THE LIVINGROOM_



dinosaurdammit said:


> i scoff at you. my downstairs is so big  the trojan horse wasnt a horse, they were describing my  manlyness



MY DICK IS MUCH BETTER THAN YOURS
MY DICK WILL WALK RIGHT THROUGH THE DOOR 
(CIGARO CIGARO CIGARO)


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Littlerock said:


> Now I'm tempted to google images of dicks tattooed with realistic fingernails _THANKS GIBBY MY COMPUTER IS IN THE LIVINGROOM_



I want a tattoo of a smiley face on the upside of my bellend.

That way every time I pull my foreskin back, he pops out and smiles at me.

I will call him Richard


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Littlerock said:


> Now I'm tempted to google images of dicks tattooed with realistic fingernails _THANKS GIBBY MY COMPUTER IS IN THE LIVINGROOM_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




fuck you you arnt my mom >:C 

so what about that lotion made of foreskin?


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 12, 2012)

I never gave this much thought. I kind of just use the thing to piss out of and that's it. 
You know this makes me wonder if penis stylists exist.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> so what about that lotion made of foreskin?



A new meaning to rubbing dick onto your face



Artillery Spam said:


> You know this makes me wonder if penis stylists exist.



I want a long, thin, curly mustache on mine.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Ugh, I've seen a penis dragon before...I think it was uncircumcised now that I think about it. I miss that supervisor...T^T


----------



## Artillery Spam (Aug 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> fuck you you arnt my mom >:C
> 
> *so what about that lotion made of foreskin?*



What the fuck.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I want a long, thin, curly mustache on mine.


Mine is swirly pink-purple with ribs on the bottom and spikey ridges on top.  : D  Also I can take mine off.

SO PRETTYYYY ^^


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> Mine is swirly pink-purple with ribs on the bottom and spikey ridges on top.  : D  Also I can take mine off.
> 
> SO PRETTYYYY ^^



I can take mine off too, but the hard part is getting it back on again :c

I tried it once


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I can take mine off too, but the hard part is getting it back on again :c
> 
> I tried it once



I can sell you some pills that will create the illusion that that process is easier.

They may or may not cause horrible hallucinations and inspire you to eat the face off a homeless man while naked.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I can sell you some pills that will create the illusion that that process is easier.
> 
> They may or may not cause horrible hallucinations and inspire you to eat the face off a homeless man while naked.



god, woman, you have so many pills to give me

we should become best friends

now give them, prease ;u;


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 12, 2012)

I am circumcised and don't know what it's like otherwise.


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> god, woman, you have so many pills to give me
> 
> we should become best friends
> 
> now give them, prease ;u;


I still have yet to see the photo of your scribled-on junk that you promised.  Pics first, pills second.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I still have yet to see the photo of your scribled-on junk that you promised.  Pics first, pills second.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERGrznxTI...jw/cOqYXlU_ihA/s400/World's+Largest+Penis.jpg

NOW GIBE PILLS PLS HUEHUEHUEHUE


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERGrznxTIwo/RmVqyQuK38I/AAAAAAAADjw/cOqYXlU_ihA/s400/World%27s+Largest+Penis.jpg
> 
> NOW GIBE PILLS PLS HUEHUEHUEHUE




dammit all im so tired of people of taking pictures of me when i try and sun myself on a nude beach


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ERGrznxTIwo/RmVqyQuK38I/AAAAAAAADjw/cOqYXlU_ihA/s400/World%27s+Largest+Penis.jpg
> 
> NOW GIBE PILLS PLS HUEHUEHUEHUE


You didn't sign it.  :<


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> You didn't sign it.  :<




dont encourage people to sign my dick >:C its rude


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> You didn't sign it.  :<



deal w/ it

I hope your pills are not suppositories


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> dont encourage people to sign my dick >:C its rude



But fun


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Also I imagine it's really fucking hard to fap without a foreskin.



Uh...no...it's easy


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> But fun




dont make me poke you in the butt with it >:C its big and veiny and covered in turtleneck skin


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 12, 2012)

Well this thread has gotten interesting.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Uh...no...it's easy



I cannot imagine the friction.

btw lube/saliva is cheating


----------



## Nylak (Aug 12, 2012)

dinosaurdammit said:


> dont make me poke you in the butt with it >:C its big and veiny and covered in turtleneck skin


I think I'd be okay with that.  I'm not sure though.  Let's give it a shot.  



Gibby said:


> deal w/ it
> 
> I hope your pills are not suppositories



They aren't designed to be, but the effects are heightened and more immediate when they're taken that way.  :]


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> I think I'd be okay with that.  I'm not sure though.  Let's give it a shot.




a rim shot 


YEAAAAAHHHHHHH


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 12, 2012)

Nylak said:


> They aren't designed to be, but the effects are heightened and more immediate when they're taken that way.  :]



Suppositories are wierd anyway

I have a french friend who took a bunch of painkillers once, and I asked him if he had water or juice with it

he had neither

I was impressed that he swallowed them without a drink

and then I was introduced to suppositories.

frenchies are wierd.

edit: fak

Time I went to bed. This is the first good thread on FAF in ages, I hope I don't miss too much ;c


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm cut and I resent that I wasn't given a choice, and I admit I feel kind of inadequate, incomplete, and violated. I didn't always feel like this, but it started to surface recently as I learned more about circumcision.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

Got circumcised at 13 so yeah, I know what I lost. The only reason I got circumcised is I can't run away form the mass circumcision thing that my mom put me into. 

If any of you ever have a kid one day, don't put them through this, unless they want to. Then it's their problem.



Gibby said:


> It also retains moisture, hence why circumsized penises look drier than their uncircumsized counterparts. Also it protects the head of the cock from rubbing against fabric, causing the penis to gradually lose its sensitivity (a matter of like, years, but it still counts).


This summarise why I miss them so much...



dinosaurdammit said:


> so what about that lotion made of foreskin?


 What the hell?



Gibby said:


> I cannot imagine the friction.
> 
> btw lube/saliva is cheating


It's still not as hard as you would think.


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 12, 2012)

How the hell is this thread still unlocked? I'm not bitching about the thread, mind you, but wow...

In any case, on topic... yeah, I'm cut. I guess I fall into the "don't really know any other way" category. But then, I was born back in the days when it was just done as a matter of course. I don't even think my parents had a choice in the matter... it was kinda like how they used to remove the appendix while doing other abdominal surgery, even when it was healthy. 

As for the whole sensitivity thing, again, I really have nothing to compare it to, although I will say that I've had bad sex that nearly killed me; I really can't imagine it being any better.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> . . .  although I will say that I've had bad sex that nearly killed me; I really can't imagine it being any better.


Lol what? 

Tell us more, please?


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Aug 12, 2012)

i prefer the way cut cocks look, but don't really care much about my own.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 12, 2012)

Circumcised dicks last longer.

A+++ would cut again.


----------



## Kahoku (Aug 12, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> So this _isn't_ about Kimmerset, right?
> 
> Also no. It doesn't seem to be as popular in the UK as it is in the US. No idea why. I've never understood the point.



It started with the abortion thing....if we are to mutilate our kids after we give birth to them blah blah blah


Anyway on topic, I don't recommend it myself....I am cut and I don't like it. My mother said they did it because it was the healthy thing to do. Fuck you, wasn't your body and you fail. I am very angered on this topic, because I believe that we should leave that kind of stuff up to the person when they grow up. My body, even as a child, isn't yours to fuck with.



Aidy said:


> I'm pretty sure there's no health benefits that come with it. Mainly just for aesthetic purposes, but I'm probably wrong.


No your right, and if you have foreskin...all you do is clean your dick...so much trouble..... Sarcasm pointed at health asshats.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 12, 2012)

Kijha said:


> It started with the abortion thing....if we are to mutilate our kids after we give birth to them blah blah blah



I thought it was widely adopted by the US in the 1910s to combat the "Plague of masturbation".

Ya know, the same reason they invented Graham crackers.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

I'm uncircumcised; that's more of the standard here in the UK. Circumcision is essentially a religious thing.

Going carnal from the top, I'll be honest, I'd much, much prefer a sexual partner to be uncircumcised aswell. It's not just aesthetic familiarity; it's the knowledge that the glans is a pretty sensitive piece of equipment - and also that that very sensitivity's been killed off in my partner.

There's no health benefits to circumcision, since us guys are absolutely perfectly capable of keeping ourselves clean. It's an archaic tradition of no merit, and I could never do it to a hypothetical kid of my own.


----------



## Kahoku (Aug 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> I thought it was widely adopted by the US in the 1910s to combat the "Plague of masturbation".
> 
> Ya know, the same reason they invented Graham crackers.


That and to be cleaner. 

This country is so fucking dumb. I love it, but like I would "love" a blonde in the back alley...


----------



## Zenia (Aug 12, 2012)

My son is uncircumcised, as is his father. I don't like the idea of taking that choice away from a person. Sure, he wouldn't remember it when he is older... or if he had it done as an adult he would remember the pain... but it should be his choice.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I cannot imagine the friction.
> 
> btw lube/saliva is cheating



U just fap the shaft skin silly


----------



## Namba (Aug 12, 2012)

Gibby said:


> The only advantage being circumcised provides is not having to pick wayward pubes out of your foreskin at times.
> 
> Also I imagine it's really fucking hard to fap without a foreskin.


Oh. It's possible.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

Kijha said:


> That and to be cleaner.



Augh, this is a terrible excuse I see banded about, and always dogmatically. :i It doesn't make you cleaner to have your foreskin removed; uncircumcised guys are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves. 



zachhart12 said:


> U just fap the shaft skin silly



And use your thumb on the tip for bonus points! That said, it seems quite depressing to remove all that available area.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

SIX said:


> I'm uncircumcised; that's more of the standard here in the UK. Circumcision is essentially a religious thing.
> 
> Going carnal from the top, I'll be honest, I'd much, much prefer a sexual partner to be uncircumcised aswell. It's not just aesthetic familiarity; it's the knowledge that the glans is a pretty sensitive piece of equipment - and also that that very sensitivity's been killed off in my partner.
> 
> There's no health benefits to circumcision, since us guys are absolutely perfectly capable of keeping ourselves clean. It's an archaic tradition of no merit, and I could never do it to a hypothetical kid of my own.


Really? It's supposed to be that sensitive?
...Damnit.


----------



## Neoi (Aug 12, 2012)

Lol I was on home page and saw the topic in top posts on off topic. I was, "Does that say circumcision?" Then I went into off topic, "Yes it does -.-"

Anyways, I wouldn't recommend circumcision because its healthier to have a uncircumcised penis. Also the thought of cutting skin off my dick sounds frightening.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

SIX said:


> Augh, this is a terrible excuse I see banded about, and always dogmatically. :i It doesn't make you cleaner to have your foreskin removed; uncircumcised guys are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> And use your thumb on the tip for bonus points! That said, it seems quite depressing to remove all that available area.


Excuse me while I go cry in a corner right now qq


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

Kijha said:


> That and to be cleaner.


Yes, one of the dumbest reasons to circumcise. I have no problem cleaning it when I'm still not cut.

People that use "it's cleaner" as an excuse is probably lazy, don't know how to clean them, or they have no soap and water.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

speaks for itself, really. @.@


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

Apparently the US government encourages it's citizens to go through the process so they can sell the foreskin for some sort of cosmetics.
Just...ugh
That comment on that article says a lot : 
_"Average cost of infant circumcision: $300
Aftermarket value of amputated infant foreskin: $100,000
Intact Male Genitals: Priceless.."_


----------



## Kahoku (Aug 12, 2012)

SIX said:


> Augh, this is a terrible excuse I see banded about, and always dogmatically. :i It doesn't make you cleaner to have your foreskin removed; uncircumcised guys are perfectly capable of cleaning themselves.
> 
> 
> .




Read my earlier posts...I like foreskin but hate that ideology too and yes very easy to clean.
* is tired....posting tired..


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> It sucks that some boys don't get to choose though. Their parents do.



Not every time the parents get to choose. A lot of hospitals don't give parents the option. My dad told the docters not to do it to me but, they said it was standard protocol.

Being that I was circumcised, I don't have any right or say in this matter but, I'm 100% against circumcisions. Their is no medical benefit, It damages the nerves in the penis and, its just plain barbaric.

*I WANT MY FORESKIN BACK!!! *


----------



## Llamapotamus (Aug 12, 2012)

Well...aesthetically speaking, I'm kinda weirded out by uncut penises. It's like seeing that excess flabby skin under some old lady's arm when she's waving, except on your dick. But that's just me, and I'm not arguing based on religion or health.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> Not every time the parents get to choose. A lot of hospitals don't give parents the option. My dad told the docters not to do it to me but, they said it was standard protocol.
> 
> Being that I was circumcised, I don't have any right or say in this matter but, I'm 100% against circumcisions. Their is no medical benefit, It damages the nerves in the penis and, its just plain barbaric.
> 
> *I WANT MY FORESKIN BACK!!! *


Apparently there's ways to restore the foreskin non-surgically...According to wikipedia :T


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Apparently there's ways to restore the foreskin non-surgically...According to wikipedia :T



Really... I have a hard time believing this. Can you post the link.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Apparently there's ways to restore the foreskin non-surgically...According to wikipedia :T



Are they successful at all?  Links?  *lazy* ^^


----------



## Aetius (Aug 12, 2012)

Its just skin from your dick, I don't really see why some people find it to be the end of the world.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration [nsfw]
Apparently it gradually brings the glans's sensitivy back, as well.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Are they successful at all?  Links?  *lazy* ^^


No, 2 of my friends have been trying for years with no results.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration [nsfw]
> Apparently it gradually brings the glans's sensitivy back, as well.



Holy Shit. So it is true.

P.S.
You need to put a NSFW by that link.
I did not want to see dick while eating


----------



## Kahoku (Aug 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Its just skin from your dick, I don't really see why some people find it to be the end of the world.


For me it's the point of it...I don't like others doing shit to my body unless I said it's okay. My parents said sorry to me, but I can't really hate them too much. It was just the times...and I just am pissed over all. And hey, me and my dick are LIKE THIS SON.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

Better wait for the foreskin regeneration research guys.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

d.batty said:


> No, 2 of my friends have been trying for years with no results.


Are you sure? Don't take away my one and only glimmer of hope!



Project H311H0UND said:


> Holy Shit. So it is true.
> 
> P.S.
> You need to put a NSFW by that link.
> I did not want to see dick while eating


But it's there :V


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Are you sure? Don't take away my one and only glimmer of hope!


Seems legit, so, hey! [NSFW]


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 12, 2012)

Yeah I'm sure, they gave up after 4 years of trying.  And I know there dicks well, never saw a difference.  Any difference people see using these methods purely psychological.
And don't believe anything wiki is mostly lies and misinformation.  Without actual surgery it doesn't work.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> But it's there :V



Never mind. I didn't see it. My bad.



SIX said:


> Seems legit, so, hey! [NSFW]



I'm not clicking the links on this thread no more.:shock: 

At least with *Hinalle K's* link. You got to read a bit of it before you saw the dicks but, As soon as I clicked yours. BAM!!! Dick right in your face. Dont read too much into that

I'm gonna have nightmares of dicks dancing around for the next couple of weeks.

*P.S. Sorry for the double post. I thought somebody had already posted*


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Its just skin from your dick, I don't really see why some people find it to be the end of the world.


Religion mutilated my penis, so I'm an atheist! :V
You see,it's more than that, it's a matter of principles! :V


----------



## Ikrit (Aug 12, 2012)

well, personally, uncut kinda looks gross


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 12, 2012)

Cut and don't give a shit. 

If I ever have a son I personally wouldn't care either way what happens. If the old lady wants him uncut, fine.  If she wants it done, cool. If neither of us gives a shit and it either happens or doesn't, well you get the picture. 

I'd like to think my boy would have a few more important issues on his mind than a couple of inches of skin around his dick as he got older.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 12, 2012)

It's stupid. That's all I think about it.


----------



## Yago (Aug 12, 2012)

Yeah, I tend to find that I'm pretty saddened that I'm circumcised. Because I've already got a problem with curiosity, and I can't stand when I don't get to know or experience something. 

And that's one choice I consider pretty personally important that I never got a chance to make.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Aug 12, 2012)

Don't see why they can't just give the kids the choice when they get old enough to make it.


----------



## Conker (Aug 12, 2012)

I've been circumcised. It's nothing I ever really think about, though I find the aesthetic better, but that's probably because I've had to live with it. I might think otherwise if I hadn't been circumcised. 

I won't go and advocate it simply because I don't think it's a big deal either way.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 12, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Don't see why they can't just give the kids the choice when they get old enough to make it.


Because religion!


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 12, 2012)

Ad Hoc said:


> Don't see why they can't just give the kids the choice when they get old enough to make it.



Because must parents would not give the kid the choice. Besides, having your kid circumcised when their at an older age is wrong on so many levels. For one. its embarrassing. The kid would be mentally scared for life. Two. being that he is older, the nerve endings might not grow back as good or in some cases, might not grow back at all. He could lose all feeling in his penis.

Bottom line. Circumcisions are wrong and should not be done... At any age.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 12, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Because *masturbation creates crime and disease*!



Fix'd for 1910s America.


----------



## BRN (Aug 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Fix'd for America.


fix'd for america


----------



## Aetius (Aug 12, 2012)

SIX said:


> fix'd for america



Hey 1910s America was a crazy time.

You thought we were conservative now? Hell, look at all the crazy stuff we did back in the day to stop masturbation.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> Because must parents would not give the kid the choice. Besides, having your kid circumcised when their at an older age is wrong on so many levels. For one. its embarrassing. The kid would be mentally scared for life. Two. being that he is older, the nerve endings might not grow back as good or in some cases, might not grow back at all. He could lose all feeling in his penis.
> 
> Bottom line. Circumcisions are wrong and should not be done... At any age.



I wonder about the nerve ending thing being true or not, the public in general should know more about the effects of such a procedure. 

Although many adults around the world *do* get circumcised, I think most parents have it done to "prevent pain". A few years ago, I was watching a documentary show about this african village that circumcised boys at about 8 years of age I believe. Oh, it looked painful as _shit_, but the whole village made a whole damn party of it (it was like a rite of passage thing) and chanted "Be brave!!" <----Very loosely translated mind you. It was sorta cute X3 Until you saw that they pulled the skin up with their hand and cut it with a knife, that was a little jarring. 

Plus, they had to stay in a separate hut (all the boys who got cut) due to the pain and risk of infection I believe. But then they got over it and moved on, I rather enjoyed watching it.


----------



## Chrome (Aug 12, 2012)

Doesn't circumcision make your dick look bigger than if it wasn't circumcised? :?


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

Wi1dFox said:


> Doesn't circumcision make your dick look bigger than if it wasn't circumcised? :?


Uhh they remove things from it. How would it look bigger?


----------



## Chrome (Aug 12, 2012)

Because the skin covers most of it.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 12, 2012)

Wi1dFox said:


> Because the skin covers most of it.



I don't think so. If anything I think it would give the illusion of making it look longer.


----------



## Chrome (Aug 12, 2012)

OK then. Honestly I don't really care about circumcision and me making the choice since in my opinion there are way more important things for me to care about.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Aug 12, 2012)

Been with both.
I personally prefer cut for sanitary and aesthetic purposes.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 13, 2012)

So I'm not going to talk about my junk at all but what I will do is post this link about the pros and cons of circumcision:
http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page5.htm

What I found interesting from that article, and from what I have been told before, is that circumcision greatly reduces the chance of penile cancer and also STDs. As for cleanliness that argument comes from the time when you wouldn't be washing for weeks or even months at a time. Looking at it from that angle it definitely makes sense but now with the prevalence of washing daily I can see this becoming a moot point. Finally, I never really understood people feeling mutilated from being circumcised but I guess it varies from person to person.


----------



## Criminal Scum (Aug 13, 2012)

What the fuck is this thread


I don't even understand how people ever thought, "Hey, I have a great idea! Cut part of my dick off! Let's all cut our dicks-- for Jesus!"


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 13, 2012)

Criminal Scum said:


> What the fuck is this thread
> 
> 
> I don't even understand how people ever thought, "Hey, I have a great idea! Cut part of my dick off! Let's all cut our dicks-- for Jesus!"



I know right. People are fucking stupid.


I'm been researching for the last couple of hours about foreskin restoration. If it works, I might just look into it because I always thought it was wrong that I was circumcised.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2012)

Criminal Scum said:


> What the fuck is this thread
> 
> 
> I don't even understand how people ever thought, "Hey, I have a great idea! Cut part of my dick off! *Let's all cut our dicks-- for Jesus!*"



You fail religion forever.


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 13, 2012)

Aetius said:


> You fail religion forever.



Not necessarily a bad thing. 

But yea, circumcision is a Jewish thing.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Not necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> But yea, circumcision is a Jewish thing.



Not sure if it is required by Islam, but it is very prevalent in areas that are largely muslim.

Also circumcision is very prevalent in South Korea. Reason being is because they are America #3 (American #2 will always be Canada)


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 13, 2012)

Well, yeah. It's an old school abrahamic thing in general. Christianity just dropped it for some reason. 

It's also become sort of an American thing, once again for reasons I'm not really sure about. People thought it had medical benefits/would reduce masturbation or something.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> It's also become sort of an American thing, once again for reasons I'm not really sure about. People thought it had medical benefits/would reduce masturbation or something.



Back in ye olden days when doctors wouldn't clean their hands before surgery. The irony ;v


----------



## ThisisGabe (Aug 13, 2012)

Give the babies a choice, that's all I say.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2012)

ThisisGabe said:


> Give the babies a choice, that's all I say.



I doubt a baby would have much say within this, seeing as how they possibly wouldn't concept the ideas of "yes" or "no".


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 13, 2012)

I find it more baffling that people do not find other things to ponder about. I am pretty much in agreement with Term's entire post.

If you truly care so terribly much about something such as this, modern medicine is there for you I am sure.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 13, 2012)

Most of my male friends don't really give a flying fuck and they're not sure why other guys care so much about it either.

If I ever had the unfortunate situation to birth a child, I'd leave the decision up to the father. Personally, I think cut is more beneficial because 1. easier to clean, 2. from what i've read, harder to contract stds, and 3. it's easier to find a condom that would work with it.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2012)

Aetius said:


> *Its just skin from your dick*, I don't really see why some people find it to be the end of the world.


If it isn't a big deal then why waste time, money, pain and a plaything for a circumcision?



Aetius said:


> Reason being is because they are America #3 (American #2 will always be Canada)


Nippon-koku is the US #2. Canada is a British dominion. >:C


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Aug 13, 2012)

And you can collect all the foreskins from the hospital and sew them into a purse, that when you rub it, turns into a handbag.


----------



## Genobee (Aug 13, 2012)

I love seeing all the naive morons state "sanitary reasons" as a perfectly valid explanation. Any schlong is gonna smell if you don't wash it daily. Uncut isn't going to be any worse off if you are capable of bathing on a regular basis.

Are some individuals honestly dense enough to be incapable of thinking in a reasonable manner? Or do they just assume everything they hear to be fact because their tiny pea sized sponges don't allow them to form thoughts?


----------



## Unsilenced (Aug 13, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Back in ye olden days when doctors wouldn't clean their hands before surgery. The irony ;v



"Shouldn't we wash our hands after handling corpses if we're going to deliver a baby?" 

"Nah, we'll just lop a bit of it's dick off!"


----------



## Streetcircus (Aug 13, 2012)

From what I understand, being circumcised causes you to lose some sensation in your penis, so sex isn't as pleasurable. Being circumcised, and not having any issue with penis sensitivity at all, I find circumcision favorable for this reason. If it will help people become less obsessed with sex, then it should be forced on everyone.


----------



## KigRatel (Aug 13, 2012)

Circumcision?

Well... how the hell am I supposed to know if it's a good idea or not?


----------



## BRN (Aug 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> From what I understand, being circumcised causes you to lose some sensation in your penis, so sex isn't as pleasurable. Being circumcised, and not having any issue with penis sensitivity at all, I find circumcision favorable for this reason.* If it will help people become less obsessed with sex, then it should be forced on everyone.*




I take it social progress and the rights of the individual aren't something you consider all that valuable.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Aug 13, 2012)

Circumcision sucks! Uncut all the way!

Circumcision is as objectionable as docking for dogs... even more, because you're talking about people here.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 13, 2012)

RedFoxTwo said:


> And you can collect all the foreskins from the hospital and sew them into a purse, that when you rub it, turns into a handbag.



Wait so...those Coach's AREN'T crocodile skin?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> From what I understand, being circumcised causes you to lose some sensation in your penis, so sex isn't as pleasurable. Being circumcised, and not having any issue with penis sensitivity at all, I find circumcision favorable for this reason. If it will help people become less obsessed with sex, then it should be forced on everyone.



Must resist... urge to post... on... FSTDT...


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 13, 2012)

RayO_ElGatubelo said:


> Circumcision sucks! Uncut all the way!
> 
> Circumcision is as objectionable as docking for dogs... even more, because you're talking about people here.



You do know that some docking is functional, not aesthetic, right? My mom's friend used to have a breed that normally has its tail docked but never docked it, and it would frequently bash things with its tail hard enough to either break them, or open up a cut on its tail (which would then fling blood onto the walls as the dog continued to wag its tail). Docking is a surgical procedure, and like most surgical procedures, it may be done either for functional reasons or for vanity. 

As for circumcision, I'm cut and proud of it. I don't have any means for comparison because I've been this way all my life, but I'm perfectly happy with the way everything works and feels. I don't think I'd WANT any more sensitivity down there, and even if it could be nice, I'll trade sensitivity for the reduced smell and nastiness, reduced chance of penile cancer, and not knowing what "smegma" was until I discovered the internet. Sorry, but a little extra feeling down there simply is not worth the slimy flaps and folds to me, and I am the farthest thing in the world from jealous.  

I don't feel too strongly on the issue either way, but what DOES get to me are the militant anti-circumcision people who are actually pushing for bans and calling it child abuse now... You can usually spot these people before they even open their mouths: they're usually dirty, unshaven, unshowered, vegan, conspiracy-minded ultra leftist types who think the government is trying to kill us and/or control our thoughts with artificial dyes in foods, and the like. They need to just shut the fuck up already and stop trying to control the way other people raise their kids. And if I ever talk to one in real life, and they try to tell me I have mutilated genitals or half a dick (like they say to circumsized people online all the time) I am gonna punch one in the mouth.



Streetcircus said:


> From what I understand, being circumcised causes you to lose some sensation in your penis, so sex isn't as pleasurable. Being circumcised, and not having any issue with penis sensitivity at all, I find circumcision favorable for this reason. If it will help people become less obsessed with sex, then it should be forced on everyone.



This. And trust me, your sexual partner isn't upset about you having a little less sensitivity. That just means more of a good thing.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 13, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> And if I ever talk to one in real life, and they try to tell me I have mutilated genitals or half a dick (like they say to circumsized people online all the time) I am gonna punch one in the mouth.



You have a mutilated dick.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 13, 2012)

i entirely agree with your opinion. it is mutilation without consent, THE END. it shouldnt be allowed.
when people do it because of religious reasons it is getting even weirder. why would your god care about that stuff? but the bible seems to be crazy about foreskins anyway for some bizzare reason...


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Aug 13, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> I'm cut and proud of it.



You're saying that as if it's an achievement.


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> As for circumcision, I'm cut and proud of it. I don't have any means for comparison because I've been this way all my life, but I'm perfectly happy with the way everything works and feels. I don't think I'd WANT any more sensitivity down there, and even if it could be nice, I'll trade sensitivity for the reduced smell and nastiness, reduced chance of penile cancer, and not knowing what "smegma" was until I discovered the internet. Sorry, but a little extra feeling down there simply is not worth the slimy flaps and folds to me, and I am the farthest thing in the world from jealous.
> 
> I don't feel too strongly on the issue either way, but what DOES get to me are the militant anti-circumcision people who are actually pushing for bans and calling it child abuse now... *You can usually spot these people before they even open their mouths: they're usually dirty, unshaven, unshowered, vegan, conspiracy-minded ultra leftist types who think the government is trying to kill us and/or control our thoughts with artificial dyes in foods, and the like.* They need to just shut the fuck up already and stop trying to control the way other people raise their kids. And if I ever talk to one in real life, and they try to tell me I have mutilated genitals or half a dick (like they say to circumsized people online all the time) I am gonna punch one in the mouth.


All fair reasons, I see. Cut and uncut individuals seem quite happy either way here, both growing up in different circumstances. This is also not on the same level as female genital mutilation (which leaves a woman completely unable to experience sexual pleasure and has no medical justification). The way I see it here, it's no big matter, so whatever suits the parents best, as long as the procedure is safe and with personal of trust. That said, I don't think any side should force one or the other to reject or accept it (and the odd thing is that the uncut side is the one forcing it, heh, I suppose this is also a matter of the "standard" being held over what is different). So yes, I see no problem with circumsicion when it's not for urgent medical reasons (and if it is, of course you should circumcise the boy/man). I question more the motives behind it than the result itself, to be honest...

An unfair and unreasonable generalization to make and completely uncalled for.

@Streetcircus:
I take it you're happy with how you are and I love and appreciate that, but don't go around saying that enjoying sex is a bad thing. That is not a good justification for universal circumsicion at all.

EDIT:
Ah, so some are actually unhappy about being circumcised, interesting. This makes the "give the choice" side's argument more comprehensible. In this case, the opposite assumes everybody is the same and nobody will give a damn just like them, but in light of this, I'll leave at "it's best not to take risks in the individual's formation".


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 13, 2012)

Streetcircus said:


> From what I understand, being circumcised causes you to lose some sensation in your penis, so sex isn't as pleasurable. Being circumcised, and not having any issue with penis sensitivity at all, I find circumcision favorable for this reason. If it will help people become less obsessed with sex, then it should be forced on everyone.



Forced on Everyone?! Really?

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!!!


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 13, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> You have a mutilated dick.



We prefer the term: "Loveshroom". Thank you...XP


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 13, 2012)

An entire discussion filled with naught but people who don't know what they're even missing to begin with. To think it gets so much debate. We all only speak for ourselves. Let's try to stop pretending to speak for anyone else, and quit assuming infants have the remotest associations of choice.


----------



## Aetius (Aug 13, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> An entire discussion filled with naught but people who don't know what they're even missing to begin with. To think it gets so much debate.




If it deals with dicks, furries will love to talk about it.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 13, 2012)

Aetius said:


> If it deals with dicks, furries will love to talk about it.



You know, somehow I actually forgot this. I think I may need to go meditate or something.


----------



## Sar (Aug 13, 2012)

I don't think I would have a preference. A penis is a penis.


----------



## Criminal Scum (Aug 13, 2012)

Aetius said:


> You fail religion forever.


Hey, it was the reason I had it, and my parents are Christian. Regardless, I was just being facetious. I could have said Allah or mental health or whatever.

Doesn't Jesus talk about circumcision anyway? I could be wrong.


----------



## cobalt-blue (Aug 13, 2012)

Its cut but it keeps working like a Timex.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 13, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> An entire discussion filled with naught but people who don't know what they're even missing to begin with. To think it gets so much debate. We all only speak for ourselves. Let's try to stop pretending to speak for anyone else, and quit assuming infants have the remotest associations of choice.


What do you mean by "don't even know what they're missing" ?


----------



## Ad Hoc (Aug 13, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> An entire discussion filled with naught but people who don't know what they're even missing to begin with. To think it gets so much debate. We all only speak for ourselves. Let's try to stop pretending to speak for anyone else, and quit assuming infants have the remotest associations of choice.


The circumcision issue isn't very close to my heart. When I do think about it, I don't really like the idea, but it doesn't often come to mind unless someone else brings it up. I don't really get very upset about it. In general, I do think that that both "sides" blow it a bit out of proportion. As much as I generally dislike this argument: There _are_ bigger things out there, you are correct.

That said, posts like these and your earlier one are something of a headscratcher for me, and they're surprising coming from you. If you "agree with the entirety of Term's post" (and I suppose that this post is leveled at him as well), then you maintain that it's not important either way, that the individual won't be significantly affected. This must mean that you believe circumcision either doesn't grant significant medical benefits or only grants negligible ones (otherwise you would be at least somewhat pro-circumcision). Therefore, it must be a purely or predominately aesthetic procedure to you--a body modification, if you will, not unlike tattoos or piercings, just with more cultural acceptance. 

You cannot understand why people might be put off by the idea of giving a minor a body modification that they can't consent to, particularly on their genitals? Imagine they were scarifying the foreskin instead. Aside from some differences in potential complications, the outcome is the same: A slightly different-looking penis. Nothing that should be life-destroying, really. (Never mind that it's not a cultural norm so the kid would get teased to hell and back, but it would be the same for circumcision if it weren't as embedded.) Most people would find the idea outrageous even so--even if medically neutral, it's an incredible invasion of bodily autonomy. Does that make sense?



Aside from this particular line of discussion, even if there are agreed-upon medical benefits (as far as I'm aware, all of them are contested), they must be rather mild given that our European posters aren't keeling over of the dickrot in spite of it only being practiced by small religious groups over the pond. It's certainly not an immediate life-or-death situation. Except for a few isolated religious purposes, there's no real reason that we can't let the kids get to an age (ideally adulthood, but eh) where they can weigh the pros and cons and make the decision themselves.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2012)

Ariosto said:


> This is also not on the same level as female genital mutilation (which leaves a woman completely unable to experience sexual pleasure...


That depends on the kind of procedure.



> ... and has no medical justification).


What about guarding a woman's chastity and purity? What about cultural context? :V


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 13, 2012)

Gibby said:


> You're saying that as if it's an achievement.



Not exactly, it was more of an absurd statement made to counter the equally absurd rhetoric employed be the anti-circumcision crowd. Like saying that if you were circumcised as a baby you should feel self-pity, or should think of yourself as an amputee (all things that anti-circumcision fanatics REALLY say). It's more than a little ridiculous. 



Ariosto said:


> An unfair and unreasonable generalization to make and completely uncalled for.



Not really. I was only talking about the militant anti-circumcision advocates - i.e. the ones who think that it should be banned with criminal penalties attached, and categorize it similarly with felony child abuse... That particular movement is very closely tied to the whole "natural" lifestyle movement - i.e. whole foods only, preservatives will give you brain cancer, vaccinations will kill you, deodorants will cake your arteries with aluminum, etc. etc. Of course there are exceptions, but if you don't believe me, go listen to a few of the people actually pushing legislation on this topic.


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 13, 2012)

Cut and don't recommend. Had quite a few friction burns back in my lifeguard days. Swim shorts liner and running just don't go together, but you really don't think about that when something is happening until _after_ everything has calmed down. Or on a strenuous bike ride. Those are even worse. D:


----------



## Bliss (Aug 13, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> Not exactly, it was more of an absurd statement made to counter the equally absurd rhetoric employed be the anti-circumcision crowd. Like saying that if you were circumcised as a baby you should feel self-pity, or should think of yourself as an amputee (all things that anti-circumcision fanatics REALLY say). It's more than a little ridiculous.


Circumcision is an amputation usually performed on an infant. But if it makes you feel that bad I guess we may call it 'just-a-little-snip'. :V



> Not really. I was only talking about the militant anti-circumcision advocates - i.e. the ones who think that it should be banned with criminal penalties attached, and categorize it similarly with felony child abuse... That particular movement is very closely tied to the whole "natural" lifestyle movement - i.e. whole foods only, preservatives will give you brain cancer, vaccinations will kill you, deodorants will cake your arteries with aluminum, etc. etc. Of course there are exceptions, but if you don't believe me, go listen to a few of the people actually pushing legislation on this topic.


Firstly, it already _has been_ restricted and banned as child abuse with criminal penalties attached in numerous civilised countries. 

Secondly, what the fuck has the rest of you tirade got to do with the subject?


----------



## Aleu (Aug 13, 2012)

I kinda find it funny how some anti-circumcision people seem to want to make those that are circumcised feel bad about themselves. "Oh you poor foreskin-less thing you :<"


----------



## Ariosto (Aug 13, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> That depends on the kind of procedure.


Interesting.



sunshyne said:


> Not exactly, it was more of an absurd statement made to counter the equally absurd rhetoric employed be the anti-circumcision crowd. Like saying that if you were circumcised as a baby you should feel self-pity, or should think of yourself as an amputee (all things that anti-circumcision fanatics REALLY say). It's more than a little ridiculous.





Aleu said:


> I kinda find it funny how some anti-circumcision people seem to want to make those that are circumcised feel bad about themselves. "Oh you poor foreskin-less thing you :<"


I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments. Those have already undergone it and feel comfortable are in all their right and position and humans to do so, and to take it from them is an act of hypocrisy from those who are anti-circumsicion. They're advocating for choice, yet negating the choice of circumsiced adults, teens and children to live according to their vital experiences.
That said, it's very much not a blakc and white situation, although I'm now curious as to how many of the members who've expressed discomfort over it do so because of social pressure as well, and which would actually like to... hmmmm, the matter becomes more complicated, and Ad Hoc's post  is right in that both sides step over the lines a bit, and how neither really talks about it until it's brought up. 
Rilvor is also right in that neither precisely "knows" what the other is talking about in that neither really knows what it's like to be like the other.
And Kangaroo's issues bring another medical downside to it.


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 13, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Circumcision is an amputation usually performed on an infant. But if it makes you feel that bad I guess we may call it 'just-a-little-snip'. :V
> 
> Firstly, it already _has been_ restricted and banned as child abuse with criminal penalties attached in numerous civilised countries.
> 
> Secondly, what the fuck has the rest of you tirade got to do with the subject?



1. The removal of a small piece of skin is NOT an amputation. If it is, then people who've had their tonsils out are amputees, along with thousands of people who've had plastic surgery.

2. That's just not true. It's been deemed to be child abuse in certain situations, like where the child is old enough to object. Or it's done by an unlicensed practitioner. And some countries won't allow public hospitals to perform them. But it is banned outright virtually nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law)

3. If you'd read my last post, you'd know what I was talking about. I am talking about the type of people who are behind serious efforts to ban circumcision in places like California.



Ariosto said:


> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well there is one small group that knows - people who were not circumcised at birth, but made the choice to get circumcised later in life. But that's not a decision that I'd expect someone to make just for comparison's sake, so I doubt they're the most unbiased source of information.


----------



## PapayaShark (Aug 13, 2012)

I don't support circumcising children unless it's necessary. Grown men can do what they want.


----------



## Namba (Aug 13, 2012)

Here's what I think... You can't miss what you never had.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 13, 2012)

Eyal Flurry said:


> Here's what I think... You can't miss what you never had.


Sure you can.

Curiosity's a bitch.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 13, 2012)

Well sometimes you have to get cut.  In the case I my boyfriend he had to be circumsized when he was 4 because his foreskin wasn't growing at the same rate as his member.  So it became real painful so the deed had to be done.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 14, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Sure you can.
> 
> Curiosity's a bitch.


that's not the same thing.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 14, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> What do you mean by "don't even know what they're missing" ?


I'll go out on a limb here and assume that no matter which "side" you may have been placed on at birth, you probably never even cared until someone pointed it out to you. Furthermore, it seems ludicrous in my personal opinion to miss something that you cannot actually begin to imagine with any realism in the first place. Perhaps someone can point out a valid method of missing what you have never understood to begin with?


Ad Hoc said:


> The circumcision issue isn't very close to my heart. When I do think about it, I don't really like the idea, but it doesn't often come to mind unless someone else brings it up. I don't really get very upset about it. In general, I do think that that both "sides" blow it a bit out of proportion. As much as I generally dislike this argument: There _are_ bigger things out there, you are correct.
> 
> That said, posts like these and your earlier one are something of a headscratcher for me, and they're surprising coming from you. If you "agree with the entirety of Term's post" (and I suppose that this post is leveled at him as well), then you maintain that it's not important either way, that the individual won't be significantly affected. This must mean that you believe circumcision either doesn't grant significant medical benefits or only grants negligible ones (otherwise you would be at least somewhat pro-circumcision). Therefore, it must be a purely or predominately aesthetic procedure to you--a body modification, if you will, not unlike tattoos or piercings, just with more cultural acceptance.
> 
> ...



Goodness, now THIS is a post! You impress me as always, Ad Hoc.
Allow me to reply to each paragraph separately with my thoughts.

I share your thoughts on this matter. As I have been saying, I cannot begin to miss what was never there in the first place.

I'll start by saying that agreeing entirely may have been stretching a bit further than I should have. I am uncertain what I am doing that is different than the norm, but I will trust in your pointing it out for a reason and attempt to think a little deeper before responding. Allow me to rephrase; I agree with Term in that I see no reason to care. It's suppositions all around on both sides. If something may do something, then to me that only means it may. If it came down to my child, I see it as something that I would pass on to my partner for decision. If no opinion is had, then it may as well be the flip of a coin. Neither harms the child in any case. I do not consider it an aesthetic procedure comparable to body modification. I see how I am as just what it is, there is nothing momentous about it to my perceptions. I did not choose this for myself, but I recognize that life has affected me in hundreds of ways that were chosen for me. This is something so minor I never think of it. I am not dissatisfied with myself, afterall. However, I do consider body modification momentous. I see where you draw the similarities and understand them, but to my mind they are different. I consider getting a piercing heavily and ponder long on if it is something I truly want, if I can maintain the dedication it will require. In a way, it is a personal journey. This is how I see it different.

No, I do not see why someone would retroactively care. If no one had ever told me about this topic in the first place, life would be no different. I would not think of myself differently. I would not care if I was on the other side of the fence either. Why should I care that I could not consent, when my memories do not even go back that far? My mind cares far more for other things that happened to me as a child. I remember how I got the scar on my foot, that is significant. It is natural for my mind to come to the conclusion that my fellow human beings remember much the same. If it were a scarification in a silly design that we had forced on us at birth, what would it matter? I disagree on your assumption that teasing would take place, unless it has become common practice for us to show our genitals to strangers without my noticing. Perhaps people in other areas live differently, but if we are going to make the assumption that a practice of intentional scarification were an option for parents to choose at birth it seems reasonable to me that it would not be a singular event. I understand your argument, but I do not agree with it. It seems to hang heavily on individual choice, in a situation where I understand it simply does not exist. It seems even flimsier, given that restoration methods of this "mutilating" as people call it (Which is entirely personal, in my opinion. Do I feel mutilated? No, I do not. It seems perfectly fine to me. I do not see why I should allow someone else to convince me otherwise.) are readily available.

Certainly there is no reason to not let them decide for themselves at adult age. At least, none that have been proven yet. If the child wishes to undergo the pain for the personal choice, why not?

But it seems to me one of the many choices parents make for their dependent child that affect their lives later on. It seems strange to me to see shaving of skin treated with the same gravity as if they were speaking of eugenics.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 15, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> 1. The removal of a small piece of skin is NOT an amputation. If it is, then people who've had their tonsils out are amputees, along with thousands of people who've had plastic surgery.


You obviously have no idea what an amputation even is.



> 2. That's just not true. It's been deemed to be child abuse in certain situations, like where the child is old enough to object. Or it's done by an unlicensed practitioner. And some countries won't allow public hospitals to perform them. But it is banned outright virtually nowhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law)


It says in your own link that courts, such as of the district of KÃ¶ln, have made it illegal. And those restrictions go well within my statement.



> 3. If you'd read my last post, you'd know what I was talking about. I am talking about the type of people who are behind serious efforts to ban circumcision in places like California.


You smell bad and your opinion is bad. Do not take part in this conversation anymore.


----------



## AlecWolf (Aug 15, 2012)

Ugh, random question is random =l


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 15, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> You obviously have no idea what an amputation even is.



This would only be considered an amputation depending on how liberal you view what is considered a "projecting body part" which is the qualifying phrase used in the accepted definition of the word. "Skin" so far as I know isn't considered a projecting body part, so this is more in line with what's involved with a biopsy than an amputation, minus the subsequent testing.


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 15, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> You obviously have no idea what an amputation even is.
> 
> It says in your own link that courts, such as of the district of KÃ¶ln, have made it illegal. And those restrictions go well within my statement.
> 
> You smell bad and your opinion is bad. Do not take part in this conversation anymore.



Do you? It's the removal of an appendage or body part, and the medical definition DOESN'T typically include teeth, hair or skin alone. The most ironic thing is that I've experienced an actual amputation - the loss of a finger - and to call circumcision an "amputation" is quite frankly insulting to both the circumcised, and actual amputees. 

No civilized countries have banned it within their borders. Local ordinances and laws, I'll give you. Whatever. It's a definitional issue.

Awesome closing summation. I'll bet I smell a fair shade better than the crunchy hippies who held "circumcision is child abuse" rallies outside Santa Monica city hall, though.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 15, 2012)

Hm so there was actually a discussion about how to clean male bits in my C.N.A (certified nursing assistant) class. Apparently, running in to an uncircumcised male who doesn't know how to clean his penis is not uncommon. Ugh. Wonderful.


----------



## Judge Spear (Aug 15, 2012)

Everything...
Everything turns into one huge argument. No matter what.


----------



## Viridis (Aug 15, 2012)

Pachi-O said:


> Everything...
> Everything turns into one huge argument. No matter what.



You've been on FAF long enough to know that that's how this place works.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 15, 2012)

Pachi-O said:


> Everything...
> Everything turns into one huge argument. No matter what.



No it doesn't.


----------



## BRN (Aug 15, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> No it doesn't.



http://puu.sh/VEOU


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 15, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> No it doesn't.



yeah...it does?


----------



## BRN (Aug 15, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> yeah...it does?


_point proven_
thus the joke

hakar is clever


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 15, 2012)

I don't actually have any _strong_ opinions on it, but the procedure does seem like a needless alteration of the body's natural state to me.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 15, 2012)

YOU ARE ALL WRONG AND I AM RIGHT HUZZZZAAAHHHH


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 15, 2012)

I'm not circumcised. In the UK very few males are, I suppose because the UK is a mostly secular country and the prevailing medical attitude is to minimise intervention. 

I view circumcision in response to a medical problem like an otherwise incurable infection/inflammation etc as fair, but I view religious circumcision of infants or for 'apprehensive' medical reasons as mutilation. Unnecessary and unconsented surgeries will always get this reaction from me. 

It's arguable that circumcision decreases the likelihood of prostate cancers if done before virginity is lost because the cells in the foreskin sometimes form the mechanism of STI infection, by which cancer probability is increased. However safe sex evades this problem without surgery and regular masturbation decreases the probability of prostate cancer by the same margin, about 15%, anyway by expeling carinogens.


----------



## Fernin (Aug 15, 2012)

The natural evolution of this thread has been hilarious. You all have my thanks.8D


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 15, 2012)

d.batty said:


> YOU ARE ALL WRONG AND I AM RIGHT HUZZZZAAAHHHH



I dream of a day where a uncircumcised man and a circumcised guy could live together in piece, and maybe even love each other...

Oh wait...:shock:

Btw, 8 pages in and still the poll option for "uncut but would recommend cut" shows a goose-egg. I suppose they could always just go get circumcised after all...


----------



## Bliss (Aug 16, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This would only be considered an amputation depending on how liberal you view what is considered a "projecting body part" which is the qualifying phrase used in the accepted definition of the word. "Skin" so far as I know isn't considered a projecting body part, so this is more in line with what's involved with a biopsy than an amputation, minus the subsequent testing.


Penis is a body extremity (and the foresking itself is a protruding part of the body); an amputation means removal of one or its appendage(s). Skin and its tissues may be a 'projecting body part' like any other organ.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 16, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Penis is a body extremity (and the foresking itself is a protruding part of the body); an amputation means removal of one or its appendage(s). Skin and its tissues may be a 'projecting body part' like any other organ.



  *doesn't know whether to believe you or Term >>*


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 16, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Penis is a body extremity (and the foresking itself is a protruding part of the body); an amputation means removal of one or its appendage(s). Skin and its tissues may be a 'projecting body part' like any other organ.



Except the organ or appendage isn't being removed.  What is being removed is a bit of skin.  If removing skin counts as an amputation, then I too must be an amputee for skin that I've had removed for cancer screening.

If you're simply going to say any body part removal makes you an amputee, you're submitting as well that cutting nails and hair would also qualify as amputations.

Point being, somewhere along the line the word has some level of specific context which I don't really see this specific procedure qualifying as an "amputation."  I think the connotation surrounding the term "amputation" is more used as a scare tactic as opposed to an appropriate description of what is going on here.  But of course this is all semantics.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 16, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Except the organ or appendage isn't being removed.  What is being removed is a bit of skin.  If removing skin counts as an amputation, then I too must be an amputee for skin that I've had removed for cancer screening.
> 
> If you're simply going to say any body part removal makes you an amputee, you're submitting as well that cutting nails and hair would also qualify as amputations.
> 
> Point being, somewhere along the line the word has some level of specific context which I don't really see this specific procedure qualifying as an "amputation."  I think the connotation surrounding the term "amputation" is more used as a scare tactic as opposed to an appropriate description of what is going on here.  But of course this is all semantics.



I think Term wins this one.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 16, 2012)

*NSFW POST GET!*



Nylak said:


> Is this an inappropriate topic?  Maybe.  Whatever.
> 
> A couple of my lady friends and I have been arguing over this, and since  my male sexual conquests are understandably limited and I have few male  friends that I can ask this without being looked at like a total  weirdo, I don't really know much about this other than stats my friend  googled on her iPhone while we were at a bar and then loudly announced  to the rest of the customers.
> 
> ...


In the US, it is  estimated that approximately 60% or more of house hold males were  circumcised at birth, while around 10 to 15% underwent circumcision at  or beyond the age of fifteen. Circumcision is losing it's popularity in  the United States as cultural attitudes regarding religion, cleanliness,  sex, and consent continue to evolve. 1. Should Teens Make Circumcision Decisions?


Nylak said:


> Apparently numbers are going down.  Also,  apparently a lot of guys don't like it.


Males in the United  States report different feelings regarding their circumcision, with a  median figure being placed at around 69% reporting confidence in how the  procedure has left them since birth. And to clarify, because I was too tired at the time of writing this to say it Nylak, I am now going to explain my beliefs in regards to circumcision as a circumcised male, as well as break out some neat stuff to help aid people (including you) in making a decision, in the future, if any, about circumcision in general.

THERE LATE NIGHT EDIT GET! 4:01AM

tl;dr Begins here. 

Watch videos below to end post! 
Or  turn to chapter, "HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN" in order to continue your  quest of circumcision knowledge!

Penn  & Teller on Circumcision Part I of II
Penn  & Teller on Circumcision Part II of II

Circumcision, FurAffinity; you've chosen it.

So,  what is circumcision? Circumcision is the practice of removing a human  males foreskin. Arguments  for  and against  range from, "It reduces the males risk of acquiring a urethral  infection", to "it increases the pleasure of sex by protecting the  penises glans from dry friction, rocks, or you know, penis eating  predators, like  smelly  pirate hookers." Since we now know from posts prior to this one  that Monotheisms practice circumcision as a religious rite of passage to  not masturbate or some shit, but fuck like rabbits after the thought  (fact, thought, fact;chicken, egg,  Mitt  Romney), and that the tradition world wide is not as practiced as it  used to be,  spare the  United States, let's get to the good part!

*Pictures!*

For  the sake of argument (and NSFW up ahead), let's pretend that you're a  human female looking to circumcise your males infants penis because  it's been the family tradition of oh so many years, or maybe you believe  it's cute on other men and that other women might like it  (see,  "you" might like it), or whatever (other reasons are fear via  argumentum ad populum; "everyones doing it, therefore it's correct".)  Here's what most women, men, and many people envision the perfect (or in  this case, "argument;common") circumcision to look like on a guy oh so many years down the road.

Neat looking, huh? :3c

Well, you ever hear of the term, "skin bridge?" Snag? or Pit? No? Okay, outside of Rambo: First Blood? You'll remember them if I show you, and  just remember that what I am about to show you is FAR, FAR more common than what we stereotype and envision as everybody elses dick until we actually see them (see, stunt cock.) So, let's shoot down the myth of "stunt cocks" and "circumcisions as always perfect" for a moment here. Have you  ever wondered what an actual, "normal" looking circumcised penis looks  like? Sure you know, but do you actually ... know? Well, you're about to  find out because ...

*Dong's like these* *are more common than you think.*

What  we have here is a circumcision classic called, "the Bridge" (a  direct-to-DVD, M. Night Shyamalan classic!) a scar which at first glance  looks terrifyingly like a tiny group of ants randomly decided it would totally be sweet as fuck to just march out of the ole' nest and build a flesh bridge in the middle of fuck nowhere besides another  dudes junk because seriously, fuck that guy. 

*So, what is a "bridge?"* 

A  "Bridge" is a stretch of skin which is formed by cells attempting to  heal and clout the original scar tissue left over by the circumcision  procedure itself. Two events perfect the formation of the bridge: first  is the act of cell division to repair tissue damage on the surface of  the penis, and the second is the same act of cell division occurring  between naturally forming contact points at the base of the males penis  head and the shafts skin, which also forces the contact of uncut tissue  on or around the head of the penis, into the scar tissue itself. So,  it's through the division of mother cells into daughter cells (on  daddies dick no less :/ ) that an infants body attempts to heal the  "attack"; and *that* is how such formations like these occur.

Although  there are no statistics that *I* know of (surprising, eh?) which  document or attempt to report the commonality of such features in any  given population of circumcised males, they're very common. Some are  slight,   some  are large; but all can cause some measure of discomfort. What's  worse is that against the image society worships as the perfect male,  men with these features face the pressure of having to belong with a  people who are sexually illiterate in a sense; ignorant by design, or by  comfort.

 Some food for thought for the "on the fence crowd".

*How about dongs like* these? *Again, way more common than you think, at least more common than ole' stud up there.*

Another  circumcision classic. Tags, or  snags,  are fleshy little middle fingers to  whoever  the circumcising pediatrician or doctor was that day. While some  people pretend not to notice these, or any other imperfections, they're  very hard to not notice, and in my own sense of textile,  hands-on-faggotry, the presence of one of these breaks the congruity of  the penises shaft appearing smooth, and you know, normal. Alright, people who have them are normal, the circumcision wasn't their fault and it makes them unique.

I  should know, I have one of these (including a very, very slight bridge,  also, a village. MY SPERM AMOUNTING THE FULL MIGHT OF MY GENITAL  MILITARY.)

*So, what causes a snag?*

"Snags"  are caused by over-lapping and dividing cells, usually in the mid or  final phases of recovery from the circumcision procedure. As the skins  tissue begins to heal from the circumcision, sections of the original  scar which are already in the process of healing over through the  amazing and practical use of blood clouts, connect with other dividing  cells on the shaft, which then collide LIKE TECTONIC PLATES  RUMBLERUMBLERUMBLE. And as this happens, cell divides over cell, besides  other cells, over other cells, in one giant healing orgy of who the  fuck knows what's going on (and  THAT  is how earthquakes are formed.) And eventually, you have something that  looks like what the name sounds like; your mother was whirring you  around in the hospital all Michael Jackson excited that you were finally  here and accidentally an grip and flung you on the nearest possible  coat hanger, leaving you dangling by a "snag" on your dick.

Basically,  the long and the short of it is (impartial dick joke), your body healed  over other bodily elements attempting to perform the same recovery  efforts as the former, and buried them in  one  giant sand castle of dick skin. 

*On the other hand ...*

I can't always go on about what circumcisions do and do not (there is no try.) However, I can dispute some myths on circumcisions as a whole, probably more rapid fire than all of "that" above. So, questions time!

*Q: *Do circumcisions cause hair to grow on the shaft of a mans penis?
*A*: No. Hair growth, especially on the shaft, is more the result of genetics, not circumcision. Previously, people in the anti-circumcision crowd have alledged that hair on the shaft of your dick meant that your doctor totally put a curse on your shit, or something, but turns out, all for naught. See, their argument rests on the case that as skin cells closer to your pubic line heal over the circumcision scar, cells responsible for hair growth, grow and expand in places they shouldn't be.

However hair is also more common than you think, and in most cases, not very visible at all because the growth range of pubic hair varies from person to person. One person has a hairy shaft, another one has blonde hair as opposed to dark hair, so you can't tell. Other peoples pubic lines forms at the base of the shaft, while others simply have thinner pubic hair. Again, more of it is genetics than a simple blame on circumcision. People who do have hairy shafts are also in an equally shared demographic of men with circumcisions versus men who are not circumcised.

*Q: *Someone told me that circumcisions reduce the sensations of touch on a circumcised males penis? Is this true?
*A:* Without being able to tell exactly what one feels over another, in the form of some perverted and totally awesome study that should now be committed sometime in the future, that answer, or any like it, will be entirely subjective from crowd to strata. People do alledge that feelings are reduced, including those who once had foreskins at an old enough age to both realize and be able to know the difference after the fact; unfortunately, those people tend to forget that many more things go into sexual stimulation than simple touch. For example, guys, run your finger along the shaft of your dick. How do you feel about that?

Does it make you feel good? Does it tickle, as in, tickle-me-elmo STOP MAKING ME LAUGH SO DAMN MUCH! Or, tickle, like a sort of burn? Friction, of any type, can cause different reactions in people, especially if that's dependent upon their level of interest, or mood. Irritated? Bored? You might not find the sensation as exciting as those who are at least somewhat interested in some form of sexual stimulation to begin with. As with most things, it's also possible that the anticipation of stimulation is what makes men less receptive to touch than uncircumcised men. Consider it like this: as the counter-argument goes, circumcised men don't experience as much pleasure as their uncircumcised counter-parts because their exposed glans are rubbing around on something all day. So, the snake eats its own tale when we consider that this isn't a diminished "feel good" on the part of the circumcised, rather it's that they feel it all day, and delegate it to the, "not going to masturbate right now" part of their brains because they recognize that while denim and silky smooth boxers feel good to rub around on, they're still at work, and shit.

*Q: *I heard that uncircumcised men experience more powerful orgasms? Is this true?
*A:* Reverse of the same effect above. Since uncircumcised men are more likely to delegate intense stimulation of the glans and other bits of their parts to "sex, or fapping" due to the presence of an ever-so-protective foreskin being there, it's entirely possible that they're more responsive only because they're primed to accept such stimulation as only sexual; however, they're not quite as lucky to experience greater orgasms than their circumcised peers. As a matter of fact, circumcised men aren't either.

Remember, the power of your orgasm depends upon how aroused you are, how horny you are, and how fast you can create sparks from rapid dick friction. If somethings horn dogging you up, you're more likely to commit. If it's not, well, then we can't blame your jeans, or your genes, or your circumcision, or foreskin; it's interest. And interest will more than likely be the deciding force in the strength and pleasure of orgasm.

*Q: *I've heard that circumcised men are able to clean themselves much more easy than their non-circumcised peers; they can also avoid more diseases and such, is this true?
*A:* No. Circumcision on that basis alone means that you've been circumcised either because your mother or your father thought you'd be too lazy to actually bathe and keep up with yourself in the future, or because thinking about their infant at the time, and future grown up child, you fapsturbating was a total turn off. Seriously. Or the idea that you'd grow up to become a ravenous, all devouring predator.

No, seriously. Fears play into the role of circumcising a son, or a daughter. What some people are not telling you is that they're making that decision in as much as alledged convenience "for you", as it is "for them." Cleanliness, likelihood of getting an STD; all of this can be avoided with the necessary precautions. Oh, and get this, being circumcised doesn't magically protect you from infection. Just remember that the act of circumcision itself can not only lead to further infection as well, but death. How's that for bullshit? 

...

As you can see, I can go on and  on about these things, but at this point, I've reached my NSFW limit on  dicks (as you can see, I was overdue.) I'll get back to it later, personally, in my own bedroom, with the open, bedroom air ... Ah!

However I'd like to leave  everyone with this one point: it's unfair for me to simply post the  worst, or best of anything regarding circumcision, or non-circumcision. So, I'll add in my  own two cents for Nylak (or whoever the OP is/was), and quit posting shit like I am clever.

People  who want to circumcise their sons need to seriously evaluate why it is  necessary for them to make that decision, and than base the perceived conclusion of that on  practicality, as well as ethics. I'll tell you what I feel about *my* circumcision: I am okay  with mine, but also kind of rocky. At some angles, it's fucking  spanking. :3c At others, it seems odd, or irregular. Compared to other  guys who've had more precise circumciser people things, I am not too  bad, but my imperfections are obvious (more obvious to me, I am afraid.)  Other scar types that I didn't quite go into involve snags of a  variation that we call, whirlies. Cute name, huh? Sounds like a pokemon?  Cool, whirlies are like snags that have a slight pocket of scar tissue,  and than a heal over which makes it look like the inside of a scallop.  Bad imagery? We're still cool. Random tangent, eh?

Well consider  it, and everything I've said; because in your mind, and perhaps after reading this, some of you will believe that circumcisions  apparently make each and every male distinctly unique. How fun! And it is ... however ... while that might be fun to  think about, imagine being forced to have *that* distinction permanently,  and without option. Never leave your sons dick in the hands of another  stranger, especially for the purpose of circumcision. At least, until  he's much older. That's IMHO. I can't make that decision for someone  else. However, and now when possibly making that decision, I hope I've  been able to inform many a people out there. 

Ending moral is this:  Circumcision forces men to like what they have, but in a different way  from our uncut peers. We don't just see our dick. We see our parents. We  see their arguments. We see societies worship of perfection. We see  religion. We see hate. And we see our future partners whispering insipid  or cruel things outside of ear, because even if we can't hear it, we know their  looks. We know, and they let us know, that we aren't to their  expectations. Even if the worst fear isn't true, it's stuck with us, because we have a scar that reminds of us that constantly. 

While we can't validate these fears unless  we physically experience them, the unfortunate truth is that these  fears are valid because we experience them viscerally; and as we attempt  to mitigate the shallow depths of stupid people, we only learn to like  what we have because it's all we have left. Think about that, too. 

/as read in the voice of Randy Marsh

Oh,  and also dick jokes. tl;dr for the faggots who can't read: I think  circumcision is lame, unfortunate, and that we should avoid the practice  until our children are much older to make that decision for themselves.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 16, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Except the organ or appendage isn't being removed.  What is being removed is a bit of skin.


Skin is an organ and as well as a possible appendage.



> If removing skin counts as an amputation, then I too must be an amputee for skin that I've had removed for cancer screening.


Did it regenerate?



> If you're simply going to say any body part removal makes you an amputee, you're submitting as well that cutting nails and hair would also qualify as amputations.


I certainly am not. Nail and hair are dead and supposed to eventually shed. If you find a prebuce that completely sheds itself away, you should film a documentary since it can only be a success. :V



> I think the connotation surrounding the term "amputation" is more used  as a scare tactic as opposed to an appropriate description of what is  going on here. But of course this is all semantics.


You are quite correct on these both accounts.



Bambi said:


> *Dong's like these* *are more common than you think.*


*faints*


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 16, 2012)

WHAT SHADY SURGEON WOULD DO THAT!???


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Circumcision of males at birth is often unnecessary and naturally not consented by the patient. These two facts _should _be enough to eliminate any circumcision that is not performed for an important medical reason. [as such only a very small fraction of males would ever need to be circumsised]

On those grounds it's  indefencible to recommend that somebody else circumcise their child from any viewpoint other than necessary medical procedure. People who recommend hypothetical future children be circumcised regardless of health are ultimately recommending unnecessary surgery. 

Worse still is that this is often recommended on the back of religious motivations or sometimes even to keep a child chaste [to risk an ad hominem fallacy the fact these justifications are brought up at all is very concerning]. These are projections of identity which are irreverseable and which _should_ be banned in secular societies. 

I'm going to compare this to the south-east asian practice [Thai I believe] of giving children tooth fillings they *do not* require when they come of age for spiritual reasons [it represents abandoning animalistic behaviour]. We can all see this is an unnecessary medical procedure which risks harm for negligeable medical reason, it is the same case with male circumcision.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 16, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> *faints*


Thing is, dicks like that are really cool looking to me. 

Despite what I think about circumcision, and know about what the person goes through having one of those healing scars, I am one of those kinds of people that doesn't bat an eyelash at it simply because that person has grown up with it all their lives. In an odd way, it's neat to see on some scale what and how someones scar heals. Also, lol @ fainting.

I'll catch you!


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Bambi said:


> Thing is, dicks like that are really cool looking to me.
> 
> Despite what I think about circumcision, and know about what the person goes through having one of those healing scars, I am one of those kinds of people that doesn't bat an eyelash at it simply because that person has grown up with it all their lives. In an odd way, it's neat to see on some scale what and how someones scar heals. Also, lol @ fainting.
> 
> I'll catch you!



Quite a few cultures intentionally scar children...I suppose it's a form of branding.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Quite a few cultures intentionally scar children...I suppose it's a form of branding.



It's only bad when foreigners do it. :v


----------



## Bambi (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Quite a few cultures intentionally scar children...I suppose it's a form of branding.


Some tribes in Pakistan and Afghanistan intentionally scar their daughters to avoid having them marry another tribes elders. Not trying to justify the practice, but the cultural practice of scarring is indeed a form of branding; how that branding is rationalized varies from culture to culture however.

In west Africa, some tribes practice scarring to preserve the tradition of escaping being bought and sold to slave owners; if they were scarred, people wouldn't want them. More weird historical tidbits. Circumcision in Africa is mostly seen as a rite of passage transitioning from youth into adult hood. I guess in comparison, the use of Circumcision in the Abrahamic religions is sort of the same intent and purpose of scarring. Showing ones covenant with God, and all of that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Bambi said:


> Some tribes in Pakistan and Afghanistan intentionally scar their daughters to avoid having them marry another tribes elders. Not trying to justify the practice, but the cultural practice of scarring is indeed a form of branding; how that branding is rationalized varies from culture to culture however.
> 
> In west Africa, some tribes practice scarring to preserve the tradition of escaping being bought and sold to slave owners; if they were scarred, people wouldn't want them. More weird historical tidbits. Circumcision in Africa is mostly seen as a rite of passage transitioning from youth into adult hood. I guess in comparison, the use of Circumcision in the Abrahamic religions is sort of the same intent and purpose of scarring. Showing ones covenant with God, and all of that.



I wish scarring wasn't part of identity, necessity and consensual scarring I can partially empathise with. Scarring children however...the alien-ness of human culture suprises me sometimes.


----------



## Spotted_Tiger (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm circumcised and I said I recommend it cause I want the next generation to get head


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 16, 2012)

Spotted_Tiger said:


> I'm circumcised and I said I recommend it cause I want the next generation to get head



I think I get it, but huh?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 16, 2012)

Spotted_Tiger said:


> I'm circumcised and I said I recommend it cause I want the next generation to get head



Oral sex. Now impossible with foreskins.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm a little dissapointed there's no option for females to comment on whether they do or don't recommend circumcision [unless they are lumped in with 'not circumcised'?].


----------



## Aleu (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm a little dissapointed there's no option for females to comment on whether they do or don't recommend circumcision [unless they are lumped in with 'not circumcised'?].


I would assume it's "i don't have a penis" option :U


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I would assume it's "i don't have a penis" option :U



Poll option doesn't provide viewpoint.


----------



## Thaily (Aug 16, 2012)

Women can be circumcised too, unfortunately.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Thaily said:


> Women can be circumcised too, unfortunately.



If I'm correct this is banned in many western nations and the surgery involves removing the clitoris? Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Thaily (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> If I'm correct this is banned in many western nations and the surgery involves removing the clitoris? Please correct me if I'm wrong.



It's banned in a lot of places, but unfortunately still happens all over the place. Because it's a cultural thing people try and keep the tradition alive even if they move abroad and it's usually done by the women in the family in private. Yes, the clitoris is often removed (like with a piece of broken glass, hurrah) and sometimes the vagina is sewn shut. The men are expected to tear it open on their honeymoon to prove she was still a virgin.

I wish everyone could agree that if genitalia 1. belong to someone else 2. are healthy to LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE!


----------



## Aleu (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Circumcision of males at birth is often unnecessary and naturally not consented by the patient. These two facts _should _be enough to eliminate any circumcision that is not performed for an important medical reason. [as such only a very small fraction of males would ever need to be circumsised]



See the thing is, when the child is a minor, they don't have that much liberty in regards to consent. It falls squarely on the parents to decide what is best for their child. So the whole "no consent" argument you can just take and chuck it out the window. A BABY cannot make its own decisions regarding its health. Also, saying that a person should wait until they're old enough to make the decision to circumcise themselves I find laughable. Suppose they DO want a circumcision because they don't like their foreskin or maybe it's developed poorly and it needs to be cut. So now you have a guy who is pissed at his parents for NOT circumcising because now he also has to deal with the inconvenience of pain, stitches and care related to them, probably have to take off work or school, and a nice medical bill. They also have to refrain from having sex, masturbating, hell even an erection could cause sutures to come undone and may need more surgery or risk an infection.

Yeah if I were male and my parents hadn't circumcised me because they bought the whole "omg the baby needs to give consent" or some shit like that, i'd be pretty pissed.



Fallowfox said:


> Poll option doesn't provide viewpoint.



Poll isn't about viewpoint. That's what the responses are for.


----------



## Thaily (Aug 16, 2012)

Aleu said:


> So now you have a guy who is pissed at his parents for NOT circumcising because now he also has to deal with the inconvenience of pain, stitches and care related to them, probably have to take off work or school, and a nice medical bill.



Oh yeah, see.. I want a tattoo, but my mom didn't have thew foresight to get me one when I was a baby, so now I have to deal with the inconvenience of the pain and the itching. :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Aleu said:


> See the thing is, when the child is a minor, they don't have that much liberty in regards to consent. It falls squarely on the parents to decide what is best for their child. So the whole "no consent" argument you can just take and chuck it out the window. A BABY cannot make its own decisions regarding its health. Also, saying that a person should wait until they're old enough to make the decision to circumcise themselves I find laughable. Suppose they DO want a circumcision because they don't like their foreskin or maybe it's developed poorly and it needs to be cut. So now you have a guy who is pissed at his parents for NOT circumcising because now he also has to deal with the inconvenience of pain, stitches and care related to them, probably have to take off work or school, and a nice medical bill. They also have to refrain from having sex, masturbating, hell even an erection could cause sutures to come undone and may need more surgery or risk an infection.
> 
> Yeah if I were male and my parents hadn't circumcised me because they bought the whole "omg the baby needs to give consent" or some shit like that, i'd be pretty pissed.
> 
> ...



Don't pierce, tattoo or give your child unnecessary or aesthetic surgeries; wait until they grow up so they can decide for themselves. [yes some cultures do pierce or tattoo children]

It's not unreasonable to delay such surgeries to a point where the individual concerned has an actual choice and your anecdote is ridiculous- I could just as easily assert that somebody who has been circumcised at birth and developed a nasty scar will be angry at their parents, the one difference is they _don't_ get a choice. 

It's a little premature to assume what your viewpoint would be if you hadn't been circumcised. The probability is you'd just live your life exactly the same as you ever did, because almost all males who are not circumcised don't develop any problems related to having a foreskin. 

Pre-emptive surgery when it's unlikely there's going to be any problem...just no.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 16, 2012)

Thaily said:


> Oh yeah, see.. I want a tattoo, but my mom didn't have thew foresight to get me one when I was a baby, so now I have to deal with the inconvenience of the pain and the itching. :V



This!!!!!!!!  I'm circumsized and I wish I wasn't ;_;


----------



## Bambi (Aug 16, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Also, saying that a person should wait until they're old enough to make the decision to circumcise themselves I find laughable.


Good, because I find that the Nirvana fallacy you pulled out of thin air is what gives the joke its comedic punch. See, the condition you're talking about is Phimosis, which is a condition of the foreskin being too tight for a male to either urinate with an erection, masturbate, or even have intercourse, again with the erection part, without some form of discomfort.

Phimosis is usually a three stage condition that can be remedied at youth. Phimosis can typically be identified in young children first before they enter puberty, and the genetic factors which cause it are easily delt with; circumcision is ironically, one way to deal with a very severe condition of phimosis. However when used exclusively to bash allowing teenagers to make the decision on circumcision later on in their lives, it reads more like a desparate strawman, than a stronger, or more, or most valid point of consideration. This isn't to say that I haven't considered it, rather that the action itself is unethical. As a matter of fact, that's all I can really consider it to be.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> These are projections of identity which are irreverseable and which _should_ be banned in secular societies.



Are you implying the removal of foreskin is irreversible? Because that is incorrect. Insinuating the person will forever think of themselves in some circumcised identity should they regrow it is also a far reaching assumption. The very idea of a circumcised person wanting to regrow their foreskin in the first place means they clearly have identity issues with their penis and believe it should look different.

This entire idea is rather backwards. Taking away choice on something harmless that takes away a choice from an individual incapable of even having an opinion.

One must wonder;

If a circumcised male is unhappy, he can regrow his foreskin.
If an uncircumcised male is unhappy, he get get cut.

What is the problem, exactly?

I just find it hard to believe this entire non-issue is anything more than one side of the fence thinking the other side looks better/worse. It smacks of insecurity to me.

Some think circumcised men look "mutilated".
Some think uncircumcised men look like "mutated worms".


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Are you implying the removal of foreskin is irreversible? Because that is incorrect. Insinuating the person will forever think of themselves in some circumcised identity should they regrow it is also a far reaching assumption. The very idea of a circumcised person wanting to regrow their foreskin in the first place means they clearly have identity issues with their penis and believe it should look different.
> 
> This entire idea is rather backwards. Taking away choice on something harmless that takes away a choice from an individual incapable of even having an opinion.
> 
> ...



You *cannot *regrow your foreskin...this must be a joke, it has to be. This _isn't_ an aesthetic issue it's about unnecessary surgery on young children.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 16, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You *cannot *regrow your foreskin...this must be a joke, it has to be. This _isn't_ an aesthetic issue it's about unnecessary surgery on young children.



What? Warning: NSFW images, even though it is Wikipedia.

No it isn't true regrowth, but come now. What do you prefer to call it then?

Yes it is aesthetics, if you ask me.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> What? Warning: NSFW images, even though it is Wikipedia.
> 
> No it isn't true regrowth, but come now. What do you prefer to call it then?
> 
> Yes it is aesthetics, if you ask me.



This form of surgery or non surgical restoration does *not* replace or regrow the foreskin, it creates folds of skin which appear similar to a foreskin.
Once the foreskin is gone it's gone. 

This is not about aesthetics, choosing to circumcise a young boy whose genitals are otherwise healthy is a surgery which is not necessary and which robs the recipient of the choice to have their foreskin [not a cosmetically stretched area of skin] as an adult. 

If there's nothing wrong with someone *don't* give them surgery which carries potential complications, minimal intervention really should be standard practice in medicine.

 It's not about telling circumcised males they are ugly or deficient in any way, just as I wouldn't argue against piercing young girls' ears because of any aesthetic preference, or against encouraging people to have dental fillings they do not need for aesthetic purpose etcetera.

Freedom of religion does not provide the right to give others unnecessary surgery and medical establishments recognise there is no consensus on the benefit or harm of circumcision [although it inevitably carries risk] so state that the grounds it will improve an otherwise healthy child's health are insufficient; there's just no proof this is the case.


----------



## Ames (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh dear lord this debate again

so many jimmies rustled

both metaphorically and literally


----------



## greg-the-fox (Aug 17, 2012)

The foreskin is FULL of nerves, you can't regrow fucking nerves. The foreskin is an organ. Rilvor, you must be trolling. Appearance =/= function. A prosthetic arm is not an arm, it's a hunk of plastic, and a "regrown" foreskin is just a hunk of normal skin.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 17, 2012)

greg-the-fox said:


> The foreskin is FULL of nerves, you can't regrow fucking nerves. The foreskin is an organ. Rilvor, you must be trolling. Appearance =/= function. A prosthetic arm is not an arm, it's a hunk of plastic, and a "regrown" foreskin is just a hunk of normal skin.



Thats true but, the regrown skin does make the head of the penis more sensitive by always keeping it covered and moist.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 17, 2012)

Thaily said:


> I wish everyone could agree that if genitalia 1. belong to someone else 2. are healthy to LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE!



You heard her folks, from now on no-one gets to have sex, ever. :v


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Aug 17, 2012)

Still got mines. And don't recommend. Should be a choice made in adulthood. Get snipped while getting that sweet new tat or something. 

I mean, it is a permanent body modification, particularly a sexual one. Why do parents get to choose that as an elective modification for a newborn. I'm sure if parents told the doc to give the infant a bifurcation (another elective sexual body modification) then many more people will be up in arms over that.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 17, 2012)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Still got mines. And don't recommend. Should be a choice made in adulthood. Get snipped while getting that sweet new tat or something.
> 
> I mean, it is a permanent body modification, particularly a sexual one. Why do parents get to choose that as an elective modification for a newborn. I'm sure if parents told the doc to give the infant a bifurcation (another elective sexual body modification) then many more people will be up in arms over that.



Because your parents do it out of what they call "the greater good" (even though the greater good is often the wrong thing). They look at the pros of having it done like no infections or not having to worry about it not growing right. But must parents dont know the cons like the fact that it damages nerves in the shaft, kills almost (if not all) sensitivity in the head of the penis and, ruins the kids self esteem when it comes to sex. 

But like I said before. Not every time its the parents decision. My mom and dad did not get the choice when I was born and I've been pissed about it ever sense my dad told me about it. I assume there was something wrong with me when I was born which lead to them having to circumcise me but, thats still no excuse. 

You know what? I might just go ahead and buy a foreskin restoration kit. I know its not a real foreskin and the sensitivity will not be there but, at least it will look uncircumcised and the head will get some of its sensitivity back.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 17, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> ruins the kids self esteem when it comes to sex.



I don't believe the majority of cut men have low "sex-esteem" when it comes to their performance. I've met many who have a bit too much self-esteem when it comes to that department. I'm just sayin'...



Project H311H0UND said:


> I assume there was something wrong with me when I was born which lead to them having to circumcise me but, thats still no excuse.
> 
> You know what? I might just go ahead and buy a foreskin restoration kit. I know its not a real foreskin and the sensitivity will not be there but, at least it will look uncircumcised and the head will get some of its sensitivity back.



As for the underlined part, I'm curious as to why you felt this way. Personally, I went through my childhood with only the male members of my immediate family and mine as a reference. All of whom were circumcised too. I never really saw what another type of penis looked like until early adulthood. Was there like, some wierd penis envy thing going on in your early childhood? 

And as for the restoration kit, good luck luck on that end. It seems this strikes a pretty strong cord with you, and if you feel that it makes you less of a man, you should go ahead a give it a try. I just hope its not a "magic bean" scam.


----------



## Bliss (Aug 17, 2012)

Aleu said:


> See the thing is, when the child is a minor, they don't have that much liberty in regards to consent. It falls squarely on the parents to decide what is best for their child. So the whole "no consent" argument you can just take and chuck it out the window. A BABY cannot make its own decisions regarding its health.


Usually retarded statements of this umpteeth magnitude are only amusing, but this goes up to infuriating.

It is not a decision 'regarding its health'. The routine practice serves a barbaric ritual made for no reason but ignorance, thick-headedness and entitlement complex that you, not only could, but have an alleged _'right' _to endanger a baby and cause irreversible damage to its completely healthy organs that are supposed to be there and left alone. A very controversial viewpoint that mayhap would not be shared by anyone had people given it more thought and sense.



> Yeah if I were male and my parents hadn't circumcised me because they bought the whole "omg the baby needs to give consent" or some shit like that, i'd be pretty pissed.


_Boohoo._ It's not about you and your hypotheticals. It's about *protecting*, not_ toying with_, a minor's physical integrity and autonomy until they are old enough to choose to have themselves cut without any justifiable medical reason. And, looking at the poll with _nought_ (!) votes, I'd assume only a mad person would bet on that happening.

If a no-brainer that a child is a ward and not property, and that decisions should be executed or held in their own interest, is too hard for someone to sink in, then they must have come up with the best argument for their own forced sterilisation. Throw that 'no consent' argument out of the window, all right!


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 17, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> Was there like, some wierd penis envy thing going on in your early childhood?



Not really. When i was a teenager, I noticed that my penis sensitivity was all fucked up and it still somewhat is. I always wondered to myself out of curiosity if sex would be better if the nerve endings where not damaged because of my circumcision. 



Butterflygoddess16 said:


> And as for the restoration kit, good luck luck on that end. It seems this strikes a pretty strong cord with you, and if you feel that it makes you less of a man, you should go ahead a give it a try. I just hope its not a "magic bean" scam.



I done some homework on them and have been reading reviews. A lot of people say they work but, they take a long time.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 17, 2012)

It's a waste of time and it can be painful.


----------



## Greg (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm pretty sure we're the only species that has members with intentional sheathe removal performed between members. I'd also say in terms of pleasure uncut dicks are a load (BADDUM CHHHHH) more fun.



Gibby said:


> I want a tattoo of a smiley face on the upside of my bellend.
> 
> That way every time I pull my foreskin back, he pops out and smiles at me.
> 
> I will call him Richard



sig'd.


----------



## Thaily (Aug 17, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> You heard her folks, from now on no-one gets to have sex, ever. :v



As if that's an issue with furries :v


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 17, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Skin is an organ and as well as a possible appendage.



The entirety of the organ isn't being removed. A fairly insignificant portion, proportionally speaking, is being removed, much like in a biopsy where say a piece of your liver might be removed. Foreskin, in no medical community that I know of, has ever been considered an appendage. 



> Did it regenerate?



Still some scar tissue. 



> I certainly am not. Nail and hair are dead and supposed to eventually shed.[\QUOTE]
> 
> The outer layer of skin is mostly dead and meant to be shed. Combine that with some deeper layers of skin that barely counts as flesh.
> 
> ...


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 17, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> LOLWUT.
> 
> Maybe you have an issue with your self-esteem stemming from what appears to be more of a chronic victim complex as opposed to the sensitivity of your dick, but for most people who don't get hung up on shit like this. Quit talking for other people besides yourself.
> 
> ...



i'm not trying to play sex psychologist. I'm just giving my insight into why I think its wrong. What did I do to offend you!

I'm not trying to make people mad. I'm just saying about what to me with mine giving a reason why i'm  against it.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Aug 17, 2012)

For someone who was never circumcised, I have trouble trying to imagine the difference between a circumcised penis and a normal one. Me, personally, I prefer my men to have their dicks as Mother Nature intended them to be. And also, I just don't get Circumcision. But in the end, of course, it all comes down to what you believe in. If you want to go change the way your son's dick looks because you think you're being forced to... then just take a step back and take a nice, long look at your Moral Compass.

But hey, I have no say in the matter. Pffft! What do I know? I'm not circumcised. I wouldn't know the first thing about what it feels like to be circumcised. I'm just trying to imagine how the kid would feel if his parents tell him that they mutilated his penis for no reason whatsoever. =/


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 17, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> i'm not trying to play sex psychologist. I'm just giving my insight into why I think its wrong. What did I to offend you!



My issue is that you're making this sound like an obsession for you where you're going to go to the point of buying a kit to stretch your skin to mimic what a foreskin would look like?  And to what end?  Because you somehow have self-esteem issues over a procedure you don't remember happening to you but you're still hung up about almost two decades after the fact.  There's a point where I just have to say "get the fuck over it" and I'm just about at that point after readin your posts in this thread.

Seriously, if it bothers you that much, then if you spawn a boy make a point to tell your doctor you don't want the kid cut and be done with it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2012)

How circumcised males could vote to recommend to circumcise others [and we're assuming systematically] in any magnitude greater than 0% astounds me. There's no clear medical advantage for the vast majority of males whereas there_ are_ clear medical risks for all males.

Identity and self esteem has been mentioned in this thread, I'm going to comment on it in the context that circumcised males are much more likely to recommend circumcision without qualifying their comments with 'only with sufficient medical reason,'. 
Self assessment is in part regulated by comparrison to others, if others share our traits the security derived from them is greater. For instance a single uncircumcised male in an otherwise entirely circumcised population is more likely to feel self conscious of that difference and vice versa. 
The solution? To project or encourage your own traits to appear in others, hence why circumcised males are more likely to recommend a surgery regardless of necessity, which in other less culturaly familiar circumstances would be considered medically intrusive and barbaric. 

It's arguable those who are not circumcised are doing the same if they discourage circumcision, but unlike their counterparts they've a very solid reason to do so, which is that unnecessary surgeries performed on children are unacceptable.

Explanations of the discrepency in the poll may not be down to psychological projection, perhaps other cultural sway [in which case identity and esteem remains a deciding factor] or medical ignorance, but it appears to be a plausible and likely explanation.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Aug 17, 2012)

All I can say, being a woman that has had 2 partners one cut one uncut I HEAVILY prefer uncut penis'. My husband is uncut and I enjoy it much more than my ex. Circumcised penis' just look weird and unattractive not to mention if not done right it leave a nasty scar.

Besides not being circumcised means more pleasure for the man and a healthier penis and sex life. I don't want to hear the its cleaner argument because if you can't take a half a second to pull some skin back then that is pathetic.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 17, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Seriously, I can respect everyone going off on it as an unnecessary medical procedure, but this playing sex psychologist bullshit is where I draw the line.



Indeed.

Personally I also find it bothersome that people wish to insist that it needs to be banned from all parental choice because it causes harm, when there's not enough scientific evidence to justify a ban. Both sides of this argument shouldn't be trying to use _might_ as validation. You might get nerve damage, you might not get cancer or a UTI/ etc. If it became largely agreed upon in the majority of scientific community that circumcision DID, without any doubt, cause harm to male children I would just as against it as I am female circumcision.

No, it probably isn't absolutely a necessary procedure for every human male but the level to which some people are taking this is a bit ridiculous to me.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 17, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Usually retarded statements of this umpteeth magnitude are only amusing, but this goes up to infuriating.
> 
> It is not a decision 'regarding its health'. The routine practice serves a barbaric ritual made for no reason but ignorance, thick-headedness and entitlement complex that you, not only could, but have an alleged _'right' _to endanger a baby and cause irreversible damage to its completely healthy organs that are supposed to be there and left alone. A very controversial viewpoint that mayhap would not be shared by anyone had people given it more thought and sense.
> 
> ...


It's retarded that a parent makes the decisions? Ok then. make the baby have all the decisions about its health and see where that goes. A circumcision endangering a baby is pretty laughable. If you're talking about the circumcision itself, I'd like to see how many had died from it. I'm not talking about neglectful circumstances either.

You do realize that circumcision is done with the child's interest in mind, right? Also note that those who have voiced they are cut, don't fucking care. Oh right, they're opinions are different and don't matter.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2012)

Aleu said:


> It's retarded that a parent makes the decisions? Ok then. make the baby have all the decisions about its health and see where that goes. A circumcision endangering a baby is pretty laughable. If you're talking about the circumcision itself, I'd like to see how many had died from it. I'm not talking about neglectful circumstances either.
> 
> You do realize that circumcision is done with the child's interest in mind, right? Also note that those who have voiced they are cut, don't fucking care. Oh right, they're opinions are different and don't matter.



It's unfair that a parent can make decisions to give their child unnecessary surgeries or otherwise compromise their child's physical integrity without sound medical cause. This should especially be emphasised in the case of religion, the child retains a right to be free of religion just as much as their parents have a right to practice theirs, so compromising a child's physical integrity for the sake of the parents' religion really ought to be illegal in secular societies. 

A small portion of boys suffer notably bad results from circumcision, very few die but it still amounts to about 100 preventable deaths per year in the USA I believe. The emphasis here should be though that unnecessary medical invasion is not justified by a parent's wish, whether or not the parent considers this in the child's interest medical fact should veto their decision. 

Whether or not a person cares they had a surgery as a young child bares little relevance, plenty of hindu women don't complain about being pierced as children, the simple point is that the idea a parent's decision can overule medical fact and compromise a child's physique is not one which deserves a place in this modern world. 

Parents have no right to force unnecessary or aesthetic surgeries on their children, including religious or cultural scarring piercing and chasting.


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 17, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> Because your parents do it out of what they call "the greater good" (even though the greater good is often the wrong thing). They look at the pros of having it done like no infections or not having to worry about it not growing right. But must parents dont know the cons like the fact that it damages nerves in the shaft, kills almost (if not all) sensitivity in the head of the penis and, ruins the kids self esteem when it comes to sex.
> 
> But like I said before. Not every time its the parents decision. My mom and dad did not get the choice when I was born and I've been pissed about it ever sense my dad told me about it. I assume there was something wrong with me when I was born which lead to them having to circumcise me but, thats still no excuse.
> 
> You know what? I might just go ahead and buy a foreskin restoration kit. I know its not a real foreskin and the sensitivity will not be there but, at least it will look uncircumcised and the head will get some of its sensitivity back.



1. I am pretty sure that a properly performed circumcision does NOT damage nerves in the shaft of the penis. And if sometimes that happens due to an improperly-performed one, that's a reason for closer regulation of the procedure, not all-out banning it. 

2. It does NOT kill all or close to all sensitivity in the head of the penis. I am circumcised and I know first-hand that is a wild overstatement.

3. There is absolutely no reason it should ruin your or anyone else's self-esteem when it comes to sex. I feel bad for you if it does, because that means you seem to have bought into the bullshit "pity yourself" agenda being pushed by some people who are against circumcision. And there is no reason for that. First, I seem to remember reading that American women, at least, are more comfortable with circumcised ones because it's more the norm in this culture, even today. Also, while there is undeniably some reduction in sensitivity, I am at a loss as to why that should be reason for shame from the circumcised person's perspective. Reduced sensitivity naturally translates into increased stamina, and THAT certainly is not something to be ashamed about...


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 17, 2012)

Circumcision inevitably damages some inervated tissue in the penis, just as any piercing or cutting of highly inervated tissue will. 

It's difficult to compare the sensitivity of circumcised and uncircumcised genitals, one thing's for sure personal anecdotes are not a worthy distinction, however the statement that close to all sensitivity is lost is likely incorrect. 

There are valid reasons that circumcision would fiesably damage someone's self esteem such as unsightly scarring or feelings of religious branding etcetera
Decreasing natural sensitivity although not a reason to make circumcised males feel ashamed of themselves, should not be viewed in any positive light, if an individual does feel they need to decrease sensitivity to favour stamina there are already contraceptives which do this without surgery.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 17, 2012)

sunshyne said:


> 2. It does NOT kill all or close to all sensitivity in the head of the penis. I am circumcised and I know first-hand that is a wild overstatement.


You're sure about that?


sunshyne said:


> 3. There is absolutely no reason it should ruin your or anyone else's self-esteem when it comes to sex.


Yikes, that's a really bad nirvana fallacy right there. So, there's absolutely no legitimate account on what contributes to male depression, or sexual under-performance?

Skip back a few pages, or I can do another dick bomb to make my point.


sunshyne said:


> I feel bad for you if it does, because that means you seem to have bought into the bullshit "pity yourself" agenda being pushed by some people who are against circumcision. And there is no reason for that.


Okay, there is that part of culture on the issue of circumcision, but they're mostly ambient voices compared to the rest who report that circumcision isn't even a necessary operation to perform. We can also see this with our own two eyes: for example, why would our parents choose to remove our foreskins?

After one fallacy after the next, we can see that tradition plays a role (argumentum ad populum), religion plays a role (moral disengagement), or it's what our parents want for us, in what makes these actions justifiable in the eyes of our parents.

We typically look at female circumcision as horrible. We view that as horrible not just because of it's severity, or the pain of the operation, or what it's designed to do, but also because it's the very act of denying women basic, human rights. From that, I think there's this sort of poisonous bullshit belief that we can do to men what we can't do to women, and that the idea of circumcision amounts to nothing more than a temporary pain is still the defense of torturing an intact, male infant because our beliefs of conformity are more a point for us to reinforce control over our own children through mutilation.

And look at how this has been rationalized: Babies don't know! Babies aren't smart! So therefore, I am superior to mutilate it, because I have power that it does not. :/ Not cool.





sunshyne said:


> First, I seem to remember reading that American women, at least, are more comfortable with circumcised ones because it's more the norm in this culture, even today.


However the trends of American women preferring circumcised men over uncircumcised men is one that pales in comparison to the idea that regardless of who you are, the partner you are in sum is what matters more. Including the girth of your penis. You're also forgetting the psychology behind American women preferring circumcised men over uncircumcised men: kin selection (those who share sexual traits of my father are sexually fit), sexual selection (those who are most attractive will be a much more successful vessel for the carrying of my genes), "the sexy son" theory (those who are attractive will produce more attractive off-spring, increasing my odds in game and reproduction theory), and argumentum ad populum (if by not fitting in, I have less people to fuck.)

Horrible, horrible idea to propose circumcisions cultural validity because women are basically only comfortable with it because <shrugs> whatever you want to do to your dicks guys.



sunshyne said:


> Also, while there is undeniably some reduction in sensitivity, I am at a loss as to why that should be reason for shame from the circumcised person's perspective. Reduced sensitivity naturally translates into increased stamina, and THAT certainly is not something to be ashamed about...


No, it doesn't quite produce the effect of giving circumcised men "greater stamina", at least in the way that you're thinking. As a matter of fact, it's been reported that women enjoy uncircumcised penises more because there's less violent thrusting to achieve orgasm, and thus less focus on the male orgasm at sum. Men typically thrust and push harder because they're less able to experience pleasurable sensations close to orgasm as rapidly as their uncircumcised peers due to the loss of their dorsal nerves through circumcision, as the position goes.

What should however be stated, as I've mentioned previously, is that there's a psychology to experiencing repeated stimulus over and over, such that an action which at one time may have caused an erection (boxers rubbing against dick getting said dick erect), but now no longer does because of it's commonality.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 17, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

I just came across this and thought you all would like to read it.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer  I just came across this and thought you all would like to read it.



""Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements" with David playing the bottom role.[4] As a child, David Reimer painfully recalled having to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks".[4]   ""

WHAT...THE....FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Aug 18, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> ""Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements" with David playing the bottom role.[4] As a child, David Reimer painfully recalled having to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks".[4]   ""
> 
> WHAT...THE....FUCK!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?



The whole story about what happen to this guy is fucked up. I remember watching a documentary about this guy.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 18, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> The whole story about what happen to this guy is fucked up. I remember watching a documentary about this guy.



I'd strangle Dr. Money, but he's already dead...Seriously who the fuck would ever make KIDS HUMP EACHOTHER????


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 18, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
> 
> I just came across this and thought you all would like to read it.



Ah, Mr. Reimer and Dr. Money. I remember researching them a few years back. Yeah, he got (quite literally) burned by his doctors, but that isn't really a great agrument against circumcision, it's a great agrument for doctors not to fuck up a surgery. I mean, the technique they were using was quite new and it wasn't safe to try yet (or maybe in general...I don't remember hearing about cauterization in this procedure anymore. 

He was driven to suicide due to multiple reasons, one being that he didn't have a penis of course. I would agrue though that Dr. Money's (damn that's a wierd last name) sexual reassignment therapies were a greater contributer and that whole "sexual reinactment" thing he had David's twin and him do was the essence of mad science. It's really a sad tale.

I'm quite impressed with the agruments presented in this thread so far. It hasn't been "hurr dickz" type thing at all.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 18, 2012)

I'm circumcised and not really sure where I stand on this, but I can say that the most sensitive part down there remains the area where the foreskin was removed, especially the glans penis. So I don't believe the whole insensitive argument.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2012)

Commiecomrade said:


> I'm circumcised and not really sure where I stand on this, but I can say that the most sensitive part down there remains the area where the foreskin was removed, especially the glans penis. So I don't believe the whole insensitive argument.



Without a conscious control and large sample set it's not possible to compare the sensitivity before and after circumcision. The vague results at the minute indicate that circumcised or not highly inervated tissue is still very sensitive, but that like any other tissue damage will inevitably decrease some of this sensitivity, especially if scar tissue is generated in place of previously inervated tissues.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 18, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Without a conscious control and large sample set it's not possible to compare the sensitivity before and after circumcision. The vague results at the minute indicate that circumcised or not highly inervated tissue is still very sensitive, but that like any other tissue damage will inevitably decrease some of this sensitivity, especially if scar tissue is generated in place of previously inervated tissues.


I believe it's possible. Just take a poll with furries. I'm sure they'd love to talk about their sensitivity and fap habits.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I believe it's possible. Just take a poll with furries. I'm sure they'd love to talk about their sensitivity and fap habits.



You need to locate individuals who have been left uncircumcised and subsequently circumcised as adults who neither had a medical problem that could pollute the test or a confirmation bias [though I suppose you could actually use a control group who is not circumcised and test a placebo 'sensitivity spray' on them perhaps?]

This still wouldn't settle all questions because people circumcised as children are naturally left out, and perhaps a more direct test detecting stimuli to the penis between them and a control group would deduce something. 


[on a tangental note about sensitivity in theory hereditory deaf individuals should also be less sensitive because the same genetic defects which cause some forms of deafness are also responsible for touch sensation. Some deaf individuals' fingertips are less sensitive as a result. They aren't aware of this discrepency in sensitivity because it's been with them their whole lives, so the same could be true of those circumcised at birth.]

The medical theory would however state that losing nervous tissue equates to losing some sensory potential.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 19, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You need to locate individuals who have been left uncircumcised and subsequently circumcised as adults who neither had a medical problem that could pollute the test or a confirmation bias [though I suppose you could actually use a control group who is not circumcised and test a placebo 'sensitivity spray' on them perhaps?]
> 
> This still wouldn't settle all questions because people circumcised as children are naturally left out, and perhaps a more direct test detecting stimuli to the penis between them and a control group would deduce something.
> 
> ...



...that was a joke :I


----------



## Sharpguard (Aug 19, 2012)

Yup, they took my foreskin away. I dunno what the health risks are either way, but I personally just don't like the idea of cutting off such a nervous sensitive part of the body. It doesn't rub me the right way, not to mention it's just cringe-worthy.


----------



## softi (Aug 20, 2012)

It's not necessary, but guys are tough enough that they can take it

On either side, I wouldn't want to be told there is something wrong with me


And finally, ladies, shut the fuck up please. You get what you get and that's that. Same goes for guys that complain about boob size

Edit: in after all the arguments that sometimes circ causes babies to die or lose actual parts of their penis shaft. As if that's supposed to make people go "oh wow I'm totally against this now". The fact of the matter is that it's just wrong to cut parts of a baby's dick off. This is fact, and in time, the practice of circumcision will die out and become outlawed. That's the future. Circumcision, genocide and all other things bad have no place in our great future as a species.

And is it really that bad? Well to answer that, first I'm going to say, is genocide really that bad? It's hard to answer when the question asks for a subjective response to something I will never be able to, or conversely never have to, experience.


----------



## Spatel (Aug 20, 2012)

Well the poll seems pretty unanimous. Nobody who is uncircumcised resents it, yet  half the people that are circumcised resent it. We're usually not that unanimous about anything. Might as well not circumcise anyone, that way no one has  anything to mope about. Seems the only counterargument in this thread is "guh, look at these people complaining about a few layers of skin".



Aleu said:


> It's retarded that a parent makes the decisions? Ok then. make the baby have all the decisions about its health and see where that goes. A circumcision endangering a baby is pretty laughable. If you're talking about the circumcision itself, I'd like to see how many had died from it. I'm not talking about neglectful circumstances either.
> 
> You do realize that circumcision is done with the child's interest in mind, right? Also note that those who have voiced they are cut, don't fucking care. Oh right, they're opinions are different and don't matter.



Parents that deny their children vaccines are proof enough that parents are pretty shit when it comes to making health decisions for their kids or looking out for their best interests. Of course the widespread use of infant circumcision is also a pretty bad mark on the medical community. 

I think your suggestion that the kids should decide on their own is pretty reasonable, even though you intended to say that it isn't. When they are the right age, they can decide. If it is an elective surgical procedure that would make sense. If parents wanted to lop off a child's earlobes weeks after it was born, most people would look at that as barbaric and unnecessary, even though that would also be just "a few layers of skin".


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Aug 21, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Well the poll seems pretty unanimous.



Pretty sure "unanimous" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I dont know anyone who calls a 50/50 split a unanimous polling on an issue for circumcised individuals.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Pretty sure "unanimous" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> I dont know anyone who calls a 50/50 split a unanimous polling on an issue for circumcised individuals.



In my view the poll shows inertia. 

It's starting to sound like a mantra now but as there's no evident medical benefit to performing the surgery systematically there's no grounds on recommending it. 

However due to inertia, people being more comfortable recommending what they themselves have, some circumcised males will recommend an unnecessary surgery anyway, whereas none of those not circumcised has a motivation to. 

I think that explains the poll results, yes?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19072761

The BBC recently published an article on circumcision in their magazine.

[edit, apologies for the double post] 

In addition, a lot of the referenced comments talk about self-consciousness when comparing your own genitals to your father's or your friends' and classmates'...when I was a kid we kept our underwear on when we were changing for sport and even when we went swimming we didn't check out eachothers' genitals. I've never got my penis out to compare it to a friend's.


----------



## Spatel (Aug 21, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Pretty sure "unanimous" doesn't mean what you think it means.
> 
> I dont know anyone who calls a 50/50 split a unanimous polling on an issue for circumcised individuals.



Among people who are uncircumcised, it is unanimous. 100% of them are against it.


----------



## BRN (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> In addition, a lot of the referenced comments talk about self-consciousness when comparing your own genitals to your father's or your friends' and classmates'...when I was a kid we kept our underwear on when we were changing for sport and even when we went swimming we didn't check out eachothers' genitals. I've never got my penis out to compare it to a friend's.


 I spent most of my gym lessons in a state-funded Christian school where the [just developing] boys and girls changed into gym gear in the same room, which was the classroom. The girls always compared their breasts, to the behind-the-backs grins of us guys. But honestly, that pretty entirely contrasts my experiences with youth swimming lessons. Just sayin', I don't think I ever saw that any of them were circumcised.





Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Pretty sure "unanimous" doesn't mean what you think it means.I dont know anyone who calls a 50/50 split a unanimous polling on an issue for circumcised individuals.


http://puu.sh/XrdP

Hardly indecisive!


----------



## Seian Verian (Aug 21, 2012)

I am circumcised, and don't honestly feel violated or anything because of it.

At the same time, my own views are that, quite simply, it's an unnecessary procedure that has such minimal medical benefit as to really not be justifiable. Yes, it's relatively minor, but it's still removal of a body part for essentially no reason, which can have some complications. I honestly don't see a justification for forcing it upon any child, regardless of what their feelings later may be. If there is not a real medical problem which necessitates such removal, WHY should such a procedure take place?

In addition, whether "justified" or not, those who are circumcised often find issue with it, while those who are not hardly ever resent the lack of it. While this is perhaps not a large factor in the ethics of the issue, I do feel that should be considered.

In conclusion, I am decidedly against circumcising children unless reasons develop that make such necessary.


----------



## Melazzee (Aug 21, 2012)

I only agree with it if it is medically beneficial. For example, my sister had her son circumcised after doctor recommendation because he had constant infections no matter what they did, and he is alot better now. It was a last resort thing though, but I'm sure he is happier now than when he was in constant pain. 

But doing it for the sake of doing it... well, I think unless his health is threatened, it should be up to the kid when he is old enough to make his own decision. It is a pretty big thing, chopping off part of someone else's body :O


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 21, 2012)

There should've been an option "Circumcised with no strong feelings either way" and "non circumcised with no strong feelings either way" so people who are just happy with their dicks and don't know if they'd like them better the other way could vote. I'd have voted one of those.


PS-Hey Melazzee, It's Jmw from the FMC


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 21, 2012)

I find it strange that everyone that's opposed to circumcision ignores the fact that it greatly reduces the chances for things such as penile cancer and even STDs. I find it even stranger that they would argue that it "robs people of normal sexual function". I'm curious as to what the basis of this because I've certainly never heard someone who's circumcised say, "Man sex is so awful and un-pleasurable for me, it completely sucks". I find that notion completely absurd as well as the argument were it is mutilation. The only way you could consider it mutilation is through the most liberal use of that word. If your going to use the word in that way then you would have to consider things surgery, for example an appendectomy, mutilation as well. Or maybe even so far as to consider tattoos or other body modifications such as piercings to be mutilation as well. If I were to have a son I would have no qualms about circumcision because the benefits far out way the supposed negatives.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 21, 2012)

Removing the penis reduces the risks of penile cancer and STD's even more.
Just saying.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I find it strange that everyone that's opposed to circumcision ignores the fact that it greatly reduces the chances for things such as penile cancer and even STDs. I find it even stranger that they would argue that it "robs people of normal sexual function". I'm curious as to what the basis of this because I've certainly never heard someone who's circumcised say, "Man sex is so awful and un-pleasurable for me, it completely sucks". I find that notion completely absurd as well as the argument were it is mutilation. The only way you could consider it mutilation is through the most liberal use of that word. If your going to use the word in that way then you would have to consider things surgery, for example an appendectomy, mutilation as well. Or maybe even so far as to consider tattoos or other body modifications such as piercings to be mutilation as well. If I were to have a son I would have no qualms about circumcision because the benefits far out way the supposed negatives.


See the blue arrow thingie in the following quote?





Bambi said:


> *NSFW POST GET!*


Click that blue arrow, read it all, and get back to me.

I'm not looking to beat you over the head with my scrotum of truth, but I'd like to know what you think about all of it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Removing the penis reduces the risks of penile cancer and STD's even more.
> Just saying.


Serious note:

It is cells under the foreskin blamed for becomming infected by sexually transmitted diseases which may then damage the prostate and cause resulting cancers. 
Of course this could also be avoided by using protection and _bizarely_ circumcision is sometimes used to discourage masturbation, but masturbation itself decreases the risk of prostate cancers by expelling carcinogens that build up in this organ.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 21, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Among people who are uncircumcised, it is unanimous. 100% of them are against it.



Gee I wonder why :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> There should've been an option "Circumcised with no strong feelings either way" and "non circumcised with no strong feelings either way" so people who are just happy with their dicks and don't know if they'd like them better the other way could vote. I'd have voted one of those.
> 
> 
> PS-Hey Melazzee, It's Jmw from the FMC



'no strong feelings' would equate to 'I wouldn't recommend it,'.
I contest that instead of 'no strong feeling either way', there should have been a markedly opposed option.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 21, 2012)

Bambi said:


> See the blue arrow thingie in the following quote?Click that blue arrow, read it all, and get back to me.
> 
> I'm not looking to beat you over the head with my scrotum of truth, but I'd like to know what you think about all of it.



I found this statistic for botched circumcisions by the American Academy of Family Physicians to be interesting:
"Neonatal circumcision has an estimated complication rate ranging from 0.1% to 35%. The vast majority of complications are infection, bleeding, and failure to remove enough foreskin. (5) One study of more than 350,000 newborns identified a complication rate of 1/476 (3) and another study estimated a complication rate of 1/100. (4) Meatitis and meatal stenosis are more serious complications that have been reported to occur in 8% to 21% of circumcised infants, (6) however no well-controlled cohort study has clearly identified a causal relationship between circumcision and meatitis. (7) Although meatitis is believed to occur more frequently in circumcised infants, balanoposthitis is believed to occur more frequently in uncircumcised children. (.8 Serious complications, such as necrotizing fascitis, urethral fistula, partial penile amputation, penile necrosis, and concealed penis, have been reported. (9) Death is rare, and mortality risk has been estimated to be 1/500,000 procedures. (10)"
What it is basically showing is that results from studies about that are coming in inconclusive, .001 and .35 is a very large gap, so I'm not sure how you can say complications are common.  That however is about the only piece of the article I would listen to due to new studies that have arisen more recently like this one. That article also mentions medicare and medical coverage as a more plausible reason for the reduction of circumcisions; circumcision rates are higher in states were it is covered.Here's another article that I found interesting. It it describes how waiting till teen years to have a circumcision can actually cause more problems than any positives it would give. I just think just as long as you don't have Svini Tod doing you kids circumcision it should be alright. I find the medical benefits to greatly out way the possible problems.

*Sorry the font apparently hates me today.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I found this statistic for botched circumcisions by the American Academy of Family Physicians to be interesting:
> "Neonatal circumcision has an estimated complication rate ranging from 0.1% to 35%. The vast majority of complications are infection, bleeding, and failure to remove enough foreskin. (5) One study of more than 350,000 newborns identified a complication rate of 1/476 (3) and another study estimated a complication rate of 1/100. (4) Meatitis and meatal stenosis are more serious complications that have been reported to occur in 8% to 21% of circumcised infants, (6) however no well-controlled cohort study has clearly identified a causal relationship between circumcision and meatitis. (7) Although meatitis is believed to occur more frequently in circumcised infants, balanoposthitis is believed to occur more frequently in uncircumcised children. (.8 Serious complications, such as necrotizing fascitis, urethral fistula, partial penile amputation, penile necrosis, and concealed penis, have been reported. (9) Death is rare, and mortality risk has been estimated to be 1/500,000 procedures. (10)"
> What it is basically showing is that results from studies about that are coming in inconclusive, .001 and .35 is a very large gap, so I'm not sure how you can say complications are common.  That however is about the only piece of the article I would listen to due to new studies that have arisen more recently like this one. That article also mentions medicare and medical coverage as a more plausible reason for the reduction of circumcisions; circumcision rates are higher in states were it is covered.Here's another article that I found interesting. It it describes how waiting till teen years to have a circumcision can actually cause more problems than any positives it would give. I just think just as long as you don't have Svini Tod doing you kids circumcision it should be alright. I find the medical benefits to greatly out way the possible problems.
> 
> *Sorry the font apparently hates me today.



The esteemed medical benefits are recognised as too negligeable to warrant surgery by many health organisations, such as the  NHS. It's not a necessary surgery, so why risk _any_ complications?

Waiting until adulthood does increase the potential risk of complications in the surgery but this time the patient is informed and making a choice aware of those potential complications, not being subjected to an unnecessary surgery. In my opinion of course any sensible adult who doesn't have any health issue with their foreskin would recognise there's no point risking complication getting it cut off- as seems to be the trend in the poll. So the overall risk factor, which includes the probability of the surgery happening at all, would likely decrease. 

A foreskin is not a birth defect.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> 'no strong feelings' would equate to 'I wouldn't recommend it,'.
> I contest that instead of 'no strong feeling either way', there should have been a markedly opposed option.


Not recommending it implies that you're unhappy with circumcisions in this context, though (especially with emphasis on NOT) even if technically it means you're just not excited about it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Not recommending it implies that you're unhappy with circumcisions in this context, though (especially with emphasis on NOT) even if technically it means you're just not excited about it.



I think a poll which divided options into 'only on doctors' orders', 'acceptable on religious grounds', and 'acceptable for whatever other reasoning the parents have'. would be informative.

Naturally I would only ever appreciate the first option as a justification for any surgery.


----------



## Cain (Aug 21, 2012)

Where's the "I'm  un/circumcised, and frankly I don't give a crap what others do to their or their children's penises." option?


----------



## Bambi (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I found this statistic for botched circumcisions by the American Academy of Family Physicians to be interesting:
> 
> ... *Sorry the font apparently hates me today.


Okay, thanks for your input.  What do you think about the argument to tradition? Is it ethical to circumcise someone on the basis of tradition, or what appears to be popular? How would you come down to any decision regarding circumcision?


----------



## BRN (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I found this statistic for botched circumcisions by the American Academy of Family Physicians to be interesting:
> "Neonatal circumcision has an estimated complication rate ranging from 0.1% to 35%. The vast majority of complications are infection, bleeding, and failure to remove enough foreskin. (5) One study of more than 350,000 newborns identified a complication rate of 1/476 (3) and another study estimated a complication rate of 1/100. (4) Meatitis and meatal stenosis are more serious complications that have been reported to occur in 8% to 21% of circumcised infants, (6) however no well-controlled cohort study has clearly identified a causal relationship between circumcision and meatitis. (7) Although meatitis is believed to occur more frequently in circumcised infants, balanoposthitis is believed to occur more frequently in uncircumcised children. (.8 Serious complications, such as necrotizing fascitis, urethral fistula, partial penile amputation, penile necrosis, and concealed penis, have been reported. (9) Death is rare, and mortality risk has been estimated to be 1/500,000 procedures. (10)"
> What it is basically showing is that results from studies about that are coming in inconclusive, .001 and .35 is a very large gap, so I'm not sure how you can say complications are common.  That however is about the only piece of the article I would listen to due to new studies that have arisen more recently like this one. That article also mentions medicare and medical coverage as a more plausible reason for the reduction of circumcisions; circumcision rates are higher in states were it is covered.Here's another article that I found interesting. It it describes how waiting till teen years to have a circumcision can actually cause more problems than any positives it would give. I just think just as long as you don't have Svini Tod doing you kids circumcision it should be alright. I find the medical benefits to greatly out way the possible problems.
> 
> *Sorry the font apparently hates me today.


 A 1 in 476 chance for a complication is insane for a surgery performed once "every three seconds", and while mortality rate of 1 in 500,000 might seem low, at that rate, it's nothing less than medically irresponsible to perform it procedurally.


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The esteemed medical benefits are recognised as too negligeable to warrant surgery by many health organisations, such as the  NHS. It's not a necessary surgery, so why risk _any_ complications?
> 
> Waiting until adulthood does increase the potential risk of complications in the surgery but this time the patient is informed and making a choice aware of those potential complications, not being subjected to an unnecessary surgery. In my opinion of course any sensible adult who doesn't have any health issue with their foreskin would recognise there's no point risking complication getting it cut off- as seems to be the trend in the poll. So the overall risk factor, which includes the probability of the surgery happening at all, would likely decrease.
> 
> A foreskin is not a birth defect.



You seem to have ignored this part: "balanoposthitis is believed to occur more frequently in uncircumcised children. (.8 Serious complications, such as necrotizing fascitis, urethral fistula, partial penile amputation, penile necrosis, and concealed penis, have been reported."

Complications can arise either way, Fallow.

Edit: Let's stop trying to use this thread's poll as support for any argument, as it has already been established that people (such as myself) are refusing to vote due to a failure in the options.


----------



## Spatel (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo - The rate of penile cancer in the population is 1 in ~1500. 1 in ~600 for uncircumcised men. 

HPV is implicated in half of those infections. HPV infects uncut men more easily, so that serves as a mechanism for much of the increase in cancer rates. Funny enough, we have vaccines for some of the carcinogenic strains of HPV, but we don't routinely vaccinate men for the disease. Why not just vaccinate all men for HPV instead of cutting off a useful part of their dicks?

That seems much more logical than what you're proposing, because the rate of complications due to circumcision is somewhere between 1:1000 to 1:3. Circumcision merely thirds your already very low chances of getting penile cancer, but does not eliminate the chances. And then it increases the chances of 'complications' from zero to a number that is not zero.

Rilvor - Phimosis is what can lead to balanoposthitis, and you could argue that phimosis is a potential 'complication' of keeping a foreskin. That's a fair cop. However, this is a fully treatable condition if it occurs. The complications for avoiding circumcision are reversible. Once the circumcision occurs any complications caused from it are irreversible.



> Edit: Let's stop trying to use this thread's poll as support for any  argument, as it has already been established that people (such as  myself) are refusing to vote due to a failure in the options.


That is such a cop out. Everyone who has a foreskin wants to keep it, or at the very least isn't resentful that they have one. Half the people that don't have one are quite resentful that they don't. Apparently their opinions don't matter.

I hope you're willing to apply the same principle equally for other medical procedures. Suppose you learned that your gall bladder was removed as a child, even though you had no disease at the time. Your parents say it was to prevent gallstones or gall bladder cancer (something which has a 3:100,000 incidence, but is pretty much a death sentence once it develops even if it's caught). How would you feel about this, knowing that your chances of a rare cancer occurring are reduced, but that you have permanently lost something, and your quality of life is ever-so-slightly reduced because of it?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> You seem to have ignored this part: "balanoposthitis is believed to occur more frequently in uncircumcised children. (.8 Serious complications, such as necrotizing fascitis, urethral fistula, partial penile amputation, penile necrosis, and concealed penis, have been reported."
> 
> Complications can arise either way, Fallow.
> 
> Edit: Let's stop trying to use this thread's poll as support for any argument, as it has already been established that people (such as myself) are refusing to vote due to a failure in the options.



The rate of 'natural' problems is, as was stated, not sufficient to merit medical intervention. Healthy tissue=do not surgically remove


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 21, 2012)

SIX said:


> A 1 in 476 chance for a complication is insane for a surgery performed once "every three seconds", and while mortality rate of 1 in 500,000 might seem low, at that rate, it's nothing less than medically irresponsible to perform it procedurally.



By what you just said we shouldn't preform any surgery at all. There are risks of complications with every surgery; hell let me use this for an example wisdom teeth extraction. I wont get into specifics with statistics but there are some serious risks as there are with all surgeries such as permanent numbness not to mention a bad reaction to the anesthetic. Now I'm certain there are people who have died from that procedure, I'm certain that almost all surgeries that take place have some risk of death, but the chances of it happening are so low that it is negligible.



Bambi said:


> Okay, thanks for your input. What do you think about the argument to tradition? Is it ethical to circumcise someone on the basis of tradition, or what appears to be popular? How would you come down to any decision regarding circumcision?



I wont go to far into the tradition basis of circumcision but what I will say is this. It was originally done for cleanliness purposes, thousands of years ago, by the Hebrews I believe. As for me I wouldn't have a child circumcised just because its "popular" I would have it done because it has medical benefits as I believe I have shown. As for me, a Roman Catholic, it isn't necessary for religious purposes but I would still do it for my child for the medical benefits.



Spatel said:


> Echo - The rate of penile cancer in the population is 1 in ~1500. 1 in ~600 for uncircumcised men.
> 
> HPV is implicated in half of those infections. HPV infects uncut men more easily, so that serves as a mechanism for much of the increase in cancer rates. Funny enough, we have vaccines for some of the carcinogenic strains of HPV, but we don't routinely vaccinate men for the disease. Why not just vaccinate all men for HPV instead of cutting off a useful part of their dicks?
> 
> That seems much more logical than what you're proposing, because the rate of complications due to circumcision is somewhere between 1:1000 to 1:3. Circumcision merely thirds your already very low chances of getting penile cancer, but does not eliminate the chances. And then it increases the chances of 'complications' from zero to a number that is not zero.



This was addressed in on of the articles I posted if I'm not mistaken. The reason why is that the HPV vaccine only address's two out of the numerous strains of the virus. You also seem to not be taking into account of complications that being uncircumcised brings, yet again you can check in previous posts to see those. Finally I don't believe the foreskin is a "useful part of the dick". I don't think anyone here will argue you can live and have a very healthy sexual life without it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> By what you just said we shouldn't preform any surgery at all. There are risks of complications with every surgery; hell let me use this for an example wisdom teeth extraction. I wont get into specifics with statistics but there are some serious risks as there are with all surgeries such as permanent numbness not to mention a bad reaction to the anesthetic. Now I'm certain there are people who have died from that procedure, I'm certain that almost all surgeries that take place have some risk of death, but the chances of it happening are so low that it is negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'by what you said we shouldn't perform any surgery at all'...oh gawd. We're arguing that surgeries only be performed out of medical necessity, not procedurally on unconsenting individuals [because like it or not that is actually mutilation of healthy tissue]

You have failed to show there are medical benefits because you've simply cherry picked organisations which say 'hey there's a tiny benefit' and ignored the larger picture which is that having a foreskin generally doesn't cause any notable problems to the majority of men and that many medical organisations state 'there's no appreciable benefit to this surgery,'. 
You are therefore opting to force unnecessary surgery on your hypothetical baby boy. 

Instead of circumcising individuals to prevent sexually transmitted infections increasing risks of cancer have them use protection. I'm not circumcised and I've suffered no complications with my penis. Just because you can live and be sexually active without a foreskin doesn't make it useless; the foreskin serves a biological purpose to keep the glans from drying and has its own nerve endings for sensation and it would be foolish to degrade this perfectly normal piece of healthy tissue because of a phobic response to penile cancers etcetera.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> 'by what you said we shouldn't perform any surgery at all'...oh gawd. We're arguing that surgeries only be performed out of medical necessity, not procedurally on unconsenting individuals [because like it or not that is actually mutilation of healthy tissue]
> 
> You have failed to show there are medical benefits because you've simply cherry picked organisations which say 'hey there's a tiny benefit' and ignored the larger picture which is that having a foreskin generally doesn't cause any notable problems to the majority of men and that many medical organisations state 'there's no appreciable benefit to this surgery,'.
> You are therefore opting to force unnecessary surgery on your hypothetical baby boy.
> ...



Have you at all been reading the articles I previously posted? I've shown that there are benefits to justify this surgery taking place. One of the articles was a study on the effect of circumcision and STD prevention. You can find it here. It showed that a heterosexual circumcised man was 35% less likely to get HPV and 25% less likely to catch Herpies. Yet again it's only mutilation through the most liberal use of the word. By using the word in that way we would also have to considering things such as removing an tooth mutilation to. What I'm merely saying here is that being circumcised doesn't degrade the value of life as you would suggest. Arguing that sex is less pleasurable for circumcised people is ridiculous from your point; at the most it's different and that doesn't necessarily mean better or worse. Trust me when I say this; it's sensitive enough as it is so I can't see how you can make the claim that circumcised people are deficient in that regard.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Have you at all been reading the articles I previously posted? I've shown that there are benefits to justify this surgery taking place. One of the articles was a study on the effect of circumcision and STD prevention. You can find it here. It showed that a heterosexual circumcised man was 35% less likely to get HPV and 25% less likely to catch Herpies. Yet again it's only mutilation through the most liberal use of the word. By using the word in that way we would also have to considering things such as removing an tooth mutilation to. What I'm merely saying here is that being circumcised doesn't degrade the value of life as you would suggest. Arguing that sex is less pleasurable for circumcised people is ridiculous from your point; at the most it's different and that doesn't necessarily mean better or worse. Trust me when I say this; it's sensitive enough as it is so I can't see how you can make the claim that circumcised people are deficient in that regard.



Wearing a condom is more effective and isn't a surgery. It's a no brainer, which is why neonatal circumcision isn't recommended by american canadian or british health institutions. 
The reason this isn't viewed as mutilation by some is because it's culturally familiar- almost standard in some cultures- and mutilation is associated with aesthetic disfigurement that varies with culture. I dare say that cultures which use ritual tattooing or smash children's incisors out unnecessarily would be mortified to be accused of mutilation too. 
I'm not suggesting that circumcision severely degrades life, I'm stating that unnecessary surgery forced on other people has to stop. As a virgin I'm making no arguments about sexual *experience* [as this is a highly subjective area in any case], but medical theory does firmly state losing nerve endings means loss of the function of those nerve endings, I mean...duh. What's amazing is that circumcised males who've never had a foreskin as an adult say 'oh there's no decrease in sensitivy', how the **** would they even know? It's an argument from ignorance.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 21, 2012)

If only we could get an uncircumcised adult male who has under gone circumcision in here, we'd at last have the final piece to the puzzle ...


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 21, 2012)

It should be common sense, that over time the sensitivity of glans would decrease, being constantly dry, rubbed agaisnt fabric , etc


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> If only we could get an uncircumcised adult male who has under gone circumcision in here, we'd at last have the final piece to the puzzle ...



Apart from tedius questions like 'does sensitivy decrease depending on what age the circumcision happened?'

D:


----------



## Hinalle K. (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Apart from tedius questions like 'does sensitivy decrease depending on what age the circumcision happened?'
> 
> D:


Well, we have the opposite, circumsized people who have underwent that foreskin restoration treatment, and they say their sensitivity increased greatly after such


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 21, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Well, we have the opposite, circumsized people who have underwent that foreskin restoration treatment, and they say their sensitivity increased greatly after such



That's interesting, although technically not the same nerve endings as were in the original foreskin and difference in sensitivity might be because of better protection of the glans?


----------



## Spatel (Aug 21, 2012)

Nerves that are lost with the foreskin are permanently lost. But the glans can lose its callused skin coating and becomes more sensitive if the foreskin is restored.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 21, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Wearing a condom is more effective and isn't a surgery. It's a no brainer, which is why neonatal circumcision isn't recommended by american canadian or british health institutions.
> The reason this isn't viewed as mutilation by some is because it's culturally familiar- almost standard in some cultures- and mutilation is associated with aesthetic disfigurement that varies with culture. I dare say that cultures which use ritual tattooing or smash children's incisors out unnecessarily would be mortified to be accused of mutilation too.
> I'm not suggesting that circumcision severely degrades life, I'm stating that unnecessary surgery forced on other people has to stop. As a virgin I'm making no arguments about sexual *experience* [as this is a highly subjective area in any case], but medical theory does firmly state losing nerve endings means loss of the function of those nerve endings, I mean...duh. What's amazing is that circumcised males who've never had a foreskin as an adult say 'oh there's no decrease in sensitivy', how the **** would they even know? It's an argument from ignorance.



In a perfect world there should be a lot of things that should be "no brainers". Wearing a condom should be one of those things but we all know damn well that wearing one doesn't always happen. As for the America pediatric academy it appears as though they haven't changed their stance since 1999, even though there have been many more studies like the ones I've linked to you since then. Wouldn't that be like taking a dated science books word for something? New information changes things. If we are to regard a medical practice as mutilation then should we not call all surgery mutilation? And it's not some barbaric ritual as you seem to want to describe. The truth behind it is that their are risks uncircumcised and circumcised. I however feel that what I have shown shows that the risks are worth it.
While it is true that nerve endings may be lost, as I stated before, it doesn't mean that the entire member has no feeling. I don't believe there will ever be a clear agreement on whether or not it decreases pleasure but your guilty of implying the opposite thing as well. I can speak from experience and say that I have absolutely no problems with pleasure so it urks me when people imply that it's mutilation and act as if it breaks your dick.


----------



## Spatel (Aug 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> In a perfect world there should be a lot of things that should be "no brainers". Wearing a condom should be one of those things but we all know damn well that wearing one doesn't always happen. As for the America pediatric academy it appears as though they haven't changed their stance since 1999


 Except that the most damning studies against your position happened in the past four years.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full


> The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.07 g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.


 http://www.nature.com/nrurol/journal/v6/n2/full/ncpuro1292.html


> ...no studies have shown an association between HIV and neonatal circumcision. On the contrary, in a study of 52,143 heterosexual men attending a sexual health clinic, circumcised men had a greater risk of HIV infection than uncircumcised men.[SUP]10[/SUP] Among developed nations, the US has the highest rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV and newborn circumcision.


 ...to add to this, some of the authors of studies showing circumcision as a useful tool for combating HIV in Africa have done long-term followups on their patients and found that actually, well shit, it doesn't seem to do anything. And this is not from some vegan hippy ultra-left-wing anarchist publication, this is coming from Robert C. Bailey himself, the guy who is a hardcore proponent of circumcision who has been accused of scientific misconduct in his earlier trials. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015552


> This study did not detect the expected association between male circumcision and HIV seropositivity, possible due to limitations in sample size and prevalence. With 38% of men and nearly 65% of women HSV-2 positive, however, our ability to detect any association between genital herpes and circumcision status or preference for circumcised partners was improved - no association was found. This supports the lack of impact on HSV-2 seroconversion with MC noted in the Kisumu trial [14], but is in contrast to the protective effect noted in the Rakai and Orange Farm trials [15].



 No one's debating you with old science books. They couldn't find a link between circumcision and perceived sexual pleasure until 2008, and it seems pretty consistent now that it's been explored in depth. It is the most sensitive area of skin on the penis. The largest concentration of free nerve endings. The ring of scar tissue around the glans after circumcision forms new axon terminals, so much of that sensitive area migrates and repairs itself, but the result is ultimately scar tissue with disorganized axons that don't respond as reliably to pleasure. They're more likely to get 'pins and needles' sensations from time to time.  

Also, here's a really interesting paper I stumbled upon recently: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-in...ed-over-circumcision-in-primary-phimosis.html   It suggests that bilateral preputial slitting is a preferable treatment to circumcision for people that develop phimosis, which seems to defeat the primary benefit of circumcision.

Normally, I stay out of circumcision threads. It is my observation that they are always terrible. I don't see sufficient evidence to ban the practice altogether, a la Germany. I also don't see sufficient evidence for any of your positions advocating it as a preventative measure for disease, or as a safe procedure without negative consequences, especially when many prominent articles are coming out showing the opposite. You can safely plead ignorance and call for allowing the parents to decide, but there is nothing to back up the very strong claim you have made that it should be a preferred option as a preventative measure.


----------



## sunshyne (Aug 22, 2012)

I don't think this has been posted yet. I know CNN is hardly a news organization anymore, but still...

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/21/decline-in-circumcisions-could-cost-billions/?hpt=hp_t3


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2012)

circumcised guys are usually more sensitive around the tip; sometimes this can be a problem
uncircumcised cock can taste gross if the person isn't clean
circumcision prevents infection by decreasing the places things can get trapped in a hot/humid environment


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Except that the most damning studies against your position happened in the past four years.
> ...
> I also don't see sufficient evidence for any of your positions advocating it as a preventative measure for disease, or as a safe procedure without negative consequences, especially when many prominent articles are coming out showing the opposite. You can safely plead ignorance and call for allowing the parents to decide, but there is nothing to back up the very strong claim you have made that it should be a preferred option as a preventative measure.



I found this section of the first article to be interesting: "Because of the method of data collection, it was impossible for the physician measuring the fine-touch thresholds to be unaware of the circumcision status of the subject. Likewise, because of the number of locations sampled, it was also impossible for the statistician to be unaware of the circumcision status of the subject". I mention this because bias is brought up in the other articles you posted. But O.K let's go on with this for a second though. Uncircumcised penises are more sensitive; does it really matter for those who had it done at infantile state? I mean for what it's worth does saying that even have a point? If it's done at an infant state, when it's best to do the procedure (I've said a few times before it's the only time it's worth doing it at form medical reasons), the person won't even know it should be or look any different. Lord knows I didn't even know what the hell a circumcision was until I was around 11 or 12.What I got from reading that article was this; the spots were the penis was sensitive were different. Not to be crude but, like I said prior, it's still very very sensitive.

I noticed with the second article the date on it was from 2008. A few of the articles I posted were of studies conducted from 2009 if I'm not mistaken. It also blames personal bias from the studies in Africa yet I'm getting the sense that there is personal bias in this article. From what I have been reading in a few articles it appears that the rate of HIV is lower in places were circumcision is more common practice. Here's an article from the CDC about HIV that features some statistics from the U.S. In it it describes how cercumcision, along with other preventative methods, can reduce the chance for HIV. Here.

Speaking from personal experience I can assure you I've never had "pins and needle" sensations. Maybe what you are speaking of is when circumcision is done at an older age, which I myself am against.

If the child is left uncircumcised I can see using that surgery method as an alternative, seeing as how the benefits of circumcision are greatly reduced with age. I'm not arguing that point but what I will say is that Phimosis prevention is not the main benefit of circumcision.

I'll just end with this. Here's a new article from a local newspaper I found. In it describes how the drop in circumcision is costing two billion more in medical costs that could have been avoided; this was conducted by Johns Hopkins. Here or here (same topic different place).

On a lighter note I've just realized that I still can't spell circumcision worth a dick, pun somewhat intended.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Speaking from personal experience I can assure you I've never had "pins and needle" sensations.



Same...No idea what that was about tbh...heh.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Aug 22, 2012)

Pins and needles like you fell asleep on your dick the wrong way?


----------



## Rilvor (Aug 22, 2012)

I am going to go ahead and offer my apologies to the posters in this thread; I can attest that my arguments are not well founded or standing on any sort of solid structure. As I simply do not have the impetus to do the means necessary for arguing my opinion on the matter I am going to once again offer my apologies and back out from this thread.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> In a perfect world there should be a lot of things that should be "no brainers". Wearing a condom should be one of those things but we all know damn well that wearing one doesn't always happen. As for the America pediatric academy it appears as though they haven't changed their stance since 1999, even though there have been many more studies like the ones I've linked to you since then. Wouldn't that be like taking a dated science books word for something? New information changes things. If we are to regard a medical practice as mutilation then should we not call all surgery mutilation? And it's not some barbaric ritual as you seem to want to describe. The truth behind it is that their are risks uncircumcised and circumcised. I however feel that what I have shown shows that the risks are worth it.
> While it is true that nerve endings may be lost, as I stated before, it doesn't mean that the entire member has no feeling. I don't believe there will ever be a clear agreement on whether or not it decreases pleasure but your guilty of implying the opposite thing as well. I can speak from experience and say that I have absolutely no problems with pleasure so it urks me when people imply that it's mutilation and act as if it breaks your dick.



A better distribution of contraception prevents an entire range of sexually transmitted diseases as well as unwanted pregnancies and the economic strain both of these cause. That's why condoms are a worthwhile expenditure for medical purposes, circumcision however...
As pointed out to you modern views on circumcision don't regard the surgery as being substantiated by any medical reason on healthy tissue. 
Medical practices carried out *without* clear justifiable medical reason are mutilation. Surgeries carried out for good reasons are justifiable, such as heart bypasses, re-attaching retinas, or removing nodules from the vocal cords. These surgeries are only carried out on people who need them and stand to have a substantial benefit, whereas no such benefit exists for circumcision and in many cases the practice is done for traditional or cultural reasons, even just for conformity. 

You have not shown the risks are worth it, simply put medical institutions which do well out of updating their opinions if they see fit reason to, don't recommend routine circumcision for medical benefits. These authorities compiled of thousands of experts disagree with you, I wonder which I should invest my trust in? ...societies of qualified doctors or someone who can use google...that's a tricky one. :v

Nobody _ever _claimed the entire penis loses all feeling. .-. or that it 'breaks your dick,'. The implication is that
-unnecessary surgeries forced on the unconsenting that irreversibly damage healthy tissues are mutilation, even if done with good will. 
-nerve endings are damaged and lost, you may not notice this loss since you've never had the memory of a foreskin and the personal experience may vary between individuals, but the indesputible fact is that healthy inervated tissue has been severed, what the **** do you think the effect is going to be?


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> A better distribution of contraception prevents an entire range of sexually transmitted diseases as well as unwanted pregnancies and the economic strain both of these cause. That's why condoms are a worthwhile expenditure for medical purposes, circumcision however...
> ...
> Nobody _ever _claimed the entire penis loses all feeling. .-. or that it 'breaks your dick,'. The implication is that
> -unnecessary surgeries forced on the unconsenting that irreversibly damage healthy tissues are mutilation, even if done with good will.
> -nerve endings are damaged and lost, you may not notice this loss since you've never had the memory of a foreskin and the personal experience may vary between individuals, but the indesputible fact is that healthy inervated tissue has been severed, what the **** do you think the effect is going to be?



I could keep showing you pages and pages of medical studies and such and you would still tell me that I have proven nothing. It's ridiculous at this point and getting quite repetitive. It is a justifiable medical procedure there are risks as with other medical procedures yet the bad out way the good. If it's not a justifiable medical procedure tell me this; why has their been a rise of two billion dollars in health care costs for diseases and problems that doctors and researches claim could have been prevented with circumcision? If what you were saying was true, that this is an unnecessary procedure, this shouldn't have happen when the rate of circumcision dropped. Also they projected if the United States circumcision rate should drop to that of Europe's the estimated health care cost would double to around 4.6 Billion. Here's the article. 

As for medical institutions in one of the articles I posted from the Center for Disease Control it said that circumcision, along with contraception, could decrease the risks of HIV. Also, the point I was making earlier was that the the American Academy of Pediatrics hasn't made a change to it's stance was in 2001 I believe. That was 11 years ago, new studies have been found since then, like the ones I've previously provided. They are apparently now reviewing their stance on circumcision though in light of the rising health care costs that could have been prevented. 

And your implying it though. And if it is done and their is no memory of it is it ever lost to begin with? The way I see it you can't loose something you don't even remember having.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I could keep showing you pages and pages of medical studies and such and you would still tell me that I have proven nothing. It's ridiculous at this point and getting quite repetitive. It is a justifiable medical procedure there are risks as with other medical procedures yet the bad out way the good. If it's not a justifiable medical procedure tell me this; why has their been a rise of two billion dollars in health care costs for diseases and problems that doctors and researches claim could have been prevented with circumcision? If what you were saying was true, that this is an unnecessary procedure, this shouldn't have happen when the rate of circumcision dropped. Also they projected if the United States circumcision rate should drop to that of Europe's the estimated health care cost would double to around 4.6 Billion. Here's the article.
> 
> As for medical institutions in one of the articles I posted from the Center for Disease Control it said that circumcision, along with contraception, could decrease the risks of HIV. Also, the point I was making earlier was that the the American Academy of Pediatrics hasn't made a change to it's stance was in 2001 I believe. That was 11 years ago, new studies have been found since then, like the ones I've previously provided. They are apparently now reviewing their stance on circumcision though in light of the rising health care costs that could have been prevented.
> 
> And your implying it though. And if it is done and their is no memory of it is it ever lost to begin with? The way I see it you can't loose something you don't even remember having.



You can keep using google to cherrypick papers, but it will not change the fact that many medical institutions don't regard the arguments put forth by all these papers as sufficient to recommend circumcision on medical grounds. There's also a trans-atlantic divide in medical advice, so I suspect a cultural bias.

Guess what, using condoms is even more effective at reducing transmission of costly sexually transmitted diseases than circumcision is [which isn't sufficient to recommend routine use of the surgery]. They additionally don't risk surgical scarring etcetera. 
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/i/map/HIV_world_map.png
It may amaze you to know that western european rates of sexually transmitted infections like HIV are actually lower than american ones, despite the discrepency in circumcision...might this be because many western european nations have prioritised good sex education, use of contraception and were some of the earliest countries to run aids-awareness advert campaigns?

2001? Your own article says 2005. ._. 
'You can't lose something you don't remember,'...now that's a really bizarre argument. I'm sure colourblind people don't have a discrepency in their sensitivity to certain hues in comparrison to normal people; afterall they can't remember it being any other way. x3


Until there is a complete consensus between medical establishments surgery shouldn't be routinely recommended to healthy people. It's the same with drugs and medicines.
Sources http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/adult/pediatrics/circumcision_90,P03080/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> You can keep using google to cherrypick papers, but it will not change the fact that many medical institutions don't regard the arguments put forth by all these papers as sufficient to recommend circumcision on medical grounds. There's also a trans-atlantic divide in medical advice, so I suspect a cultural bias.
> ...
> Until there is a complete consensus between medical establishments surgery shouldn't be routinely recommended to healthy people. It's the same with drugs and medicines.
> Sources http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/adult/pediatrics/circumcision_90,P03080/
> ...



I can accuse you of the very same cherry picking as well. I'm curious as to why you seemingly have no response to the article about the increasing costs of health care for the uncircumcised other than it's probably from bias. Also, it didn't just talk about STDs it was also about medical problems that can occur from being uncircumcised as well. As I said that article than was published yesterday and I read that there is now a call for the American Academy of Pediatrics to change their stance since study was released; from what I heard they're supposed to announce their stance next Monday on the 27th. I'm not arguing that condoms and other means of contraception aren't as important just that circumcision can lower the risk rates as well. I'm not very familiar with European affairs but I suspect different factors have a large role in rates in std transition and such. America isn't Europe after all; in fact their vastly different.

The date 2001 was the last time the stance was updated I believe that 2005 was when they added new data to the article but like I said their apparently supposed to update their stance on the 27th from what I keep on reading. Finally what I meant when I said you can't loose something you don't remember was this: if you were circumcised as an infant you never knew what it was. How can you say you lost something if you never knew it in the first place? I don't even think that thoughts can even be remembered until your upwards of 3+ years of age so it's ridiculous to say you lost anything.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I can accuse you of the very same cherry picking as well. I'm curious as to why you seemingly have no response to the article about the increasing costs of health care for the uncircumcised other than it's probably from bias. Also, it didn't just talk about STDs it was also about medical problems that can occur from being uncircumcised as well. As I said that article than was published yesterday and I read that there is now a call for the American Academy of Pediatrics to change their stance since study was released; from what I heard they're supposed to announce their stance next Monday on the 27th. I'm not arguing that condoms and other means of contraception aren't as important just that circumcision can lower the risk rates as well. I'm not very familiar with European affairs but I suspect different factors have a large role in rates in std transition and such. America isn't Europe after all; in fact their vastly different.
> 
> The date 2001 was the last time the stance was updated I believe that 2005 was when they added new data to the article but like I said their apparently supposed to update their stance on the 27th from what I keep on reading. Finally what I meant when I said you can't loose something you don't remember was this: if you were circumcised as an infant you never knew what it was. How can you say you lost something if you never knew it in the first place? I don't even think that thoughts can even be remembered until your upwards of 3+ years of age so it's ridiculous to say you lost anything.



Referring to medical institutions and general scientific consensus=/= cherry picking. Cherrypicking is when you select individual papers or news-paper reports that agree with a pre-held conviction. 

The medical problems associated with having a foreskin are of minimal concern; a majority of males with foreskins don't develop a medical problem, so preventative removal on all males is grossly unnecessary especially forcing it on unconsenting patients. Instead the least intrusive medical solution should be used _only_ on males who actually go on to develop problems. Surgery should _only _be done out of necessity or informed consent of the patient.

You lost nerve endings, that's a solid indesputible fact regardless of whether you remember it happening. The tissue simply isn't there where once it was, thus it is lost, physical tissue's existance is not subject to amnesia.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 22, 2012)

Relevant:

Charges filed against rabbi in Germany over circumcision


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Referring to medical institutions and general scientific consensus=/= cherry picking. Cherrypicking is when you select individual papers or news-paper reports that agree with a pre-held conviction.
> 
> The medical problems associated with having a foreskin are of minimal concern; a majority of males with foreskins don't develop a medical problem, so preventative removal on all males is grossly unnecessary especially forcing it on unconsenting patients. Instead the least intrusive medical solution should be used _only_ on males who actually go on to develop problems. Surgery should _only _be done out of necessity or informed consent of the patient.
> 
> You lost nerve endings, that's a solid indesputible fact regardless of whether you remember it happening. The tissue simply isn't there where once it was, thus it is lost, physical tissue's existance is not subject to amnesia.



Did you forget that I also mentioned things such as the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics? Also I'm referring to newer statistics because their notions are dated, the AAP's stance was made in 2001. As I've stated before circumcision shouldn't be done for anyone except for infants, this is because it looses many benefits and may be more harmful at an older age. And if what you say is correct, that problems associated with a foreskin are negligible, what explanation do you have for the statistics that show that medical costs are rising for the uncircumcised; costing around 2.4 billion? Also what I'm saying is that is it even a big deal if never endings are lost? It doesn't have much of an impact on sexual function; I've never heard anything about a circumcised man not being able to achieve pleasure. Anyway I'm curious to know though what the decision will be by the AAP though based on the new findings. I don't really have much else to say to be honest except for let's wait and see.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Did you forget that I also mentioned things such as the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics? Also I'm referring to newer statistics because their notions are dated, the AAP's stance was made in 2001. As I've stated before circumcision shouldn't be done for anyone except for infants, this is because it looses many benefits and may be more harmful at an older age. And if what you say is correct, that problems associated with a foreskin are negligible, what explanation do you have for the statistics that show that medical costs are rising for the uncircumcised; costing around 2.4 billion? Also what I'm saying is that is it even a big deal if never endings are lost? It doesn't have much of an impact on sexual function; I've never heard anything about a circumcised man not being able to achieve pleasure. Anyway I'm curious to know though what the decision will be by the AAP though based on the new findings. I don't really have much else to say to be honest except for let's wait and see.



I can't comment concretely on the apparant cost of not being circumcised because the source referenced didn't provide a link to the paper and its data. The figure quoted as 'uncircumcised males have cost the usa $2bn' didn't provide a time frame either. Although the figure for a hypothetical 'european' states was 'over 10 years,'. Which is actually a rather negligeable medical expense per anum per person for preserving a patient's right to physical integrity. 
In fact is sex education and use of contraception was improved the cost effectivity of circumcision could be undermined all together- but in any case cost isn't the only factor in making a medical decision, intrusion, consent and medical necessity with the individual patient's best interests in mind are to be considered. Circumcising all infants for the benefit of a small minority who may have developed problems with their foreskin is not in the interest of a great number of males, for them it's subjection to an unnecessary surgery. 

It is a big deal to lose healthy tissue; this is called physical integrity and we all have a right to it regardless of our parents' religion, tradition or medical ignorance.
Let's wait and see what the AAP says, but let's also bare in mind that canadian british and most western european health organisations don't find valid reason to make this a routine surgery, so even if AAP changed their view there wouldn't be a scientific consensus; there would need to be a strong argument that having a foreskin is harmful to a majority of male children in order to justify surgically removing it from all of them, and such a case does not exist.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Here's the study I was speaking about in a medical journal. Here. The study links medicare coverage not covering circumcision to be a major reason for the decline in it, that and the AAP's stance on it. And yet again as I've said 100 times before it's not only to prevent problems with the foreskin, it's also to help prevent things such as STDs and HIV. I'm not arguing that if your circumcised you shouldn't use a condom I'm saying that there are studies showing that circumcision when paired with contraception lowers these rates even more. The whole physical integrity thing goes back to what urks me a whole bunch about people against circumcision. You say it isn't but I get the sense that you are implying that it, for lack of a better word, breaks normal sexual function which is quite false. Anyway, I'm not sure how much more we can say without getting repetitive at this point so I'm inclined to agree to disagree.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Here's the study I was speaking about in a medical journal. Here. The study links medicare coverage not covering circumcision to be a major reason for the decline in it, that and the AAP's stance on it. And yet again as I've said 100 times before it's not only to prevent problems with the foreskin, it's also to help prevent things such as STDs and HIV. I'm not arguing that if your circumcised you shouldn't use a condom I'm saying that there are studies showing that circumcision when paired with contraception lowers these rates even more. The whole physical integrity thing goes back to what urks me a whole bunch about people against circumcision. You say it isn't but I get the sense that you are implying that it, for lack of a better word, breaks normal sexual function which is quite false. Anyway, I'm not sure how much more we can say without getting repetitive at this point so I'm inclined to agree to disagree.



Unfortunately I'm restricted from viewing any of the data unless I register an account with the JAMA network. 
I understand that you were making an argument concerning sexually transmitted diseases and not one against safe sex, I'm just asserting that I think promoting safe sex in a country which consistantly fails to provide quality sex education, so that contraction and treatment of sti's is better understood by the people catching them, may well be a better solution that avoids compromising the physical integrity of children- a large number of whome will never actually be faced with a situation where they catch HIV due to not being circumcised, for instance. 

Missing a piece of anatomy, from a medical perspective, _obviously_ changes sexual function- but to an extent which is less than the percieved personal experience 'noise floor' in this instance. Even if the foreskin was entirely decorative removing it from an individual without their consent still compromises their physical integrity.

Physical integrity isn't about trying to persuade you that you're sexually inferior, it's about getting you to recognise you have *no dominion over other people's bodies* unless you are a doctor acting in clear justifiable interest, not for religion, not for conformity and not for hypothetical preventive medicine.

In short you can believe what you like about the function of any piece of anatomy on the human body, but you have not got the right to ask doctors to remove someone else's body parts, even if you think it will personally save you about a dollar per anum in comparrison to europeans. 

((4.4*10^9)/10)/(311*10^6)=~$1.4


----------



## Bambi (Aug 22, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Here's the study I was speaking about in a medical journal. Here. The study links medicare coverage not covering circumcision to be a major reason for the decline in it, that and the AAP's stance on it. And yet again as I've said 100 times before it's not only to prevent problems with the foreskin, it's also to help prevent things such as STDs and HIV. I'm not arguing that if your circumcised you shouldn't use a condom I'm saying that there are studies showing that circumcision when paired with contraception lowers these rates even more. The whole physical integrity thing goes back to what urks me a whole bunch about people against circumcision. You say it isn't but I get the sense that you are implying that it, for lack of a better word, breaks normal sexual function which is quite false. *Anyway, I'm not sure how much more we can say without getting repetitive at this point so I'm inclined to agree to disagree. *


I guess that was sort of my point, too. On one hand, we have a lot of studies that say circumcision isn't necessary; others say that while it isn't necessary, it does not do any excessive damage. I guess that's why I centered my argument on three things:


First, circumcision just is not a medical necessity unless we're to consider things like Phimosis. You can live with or without your foreskin, but the purpose of the surgery still remains to be entirely subjective, rather than health positive.
Second, the circular logic of defending family or religious tradition just doesn't stick -- what this does is both force and harm the argument to weigh in on one's own moral agency over another as soon as it's confronted, placing the infant in a categorey where it is acceptable to harm the child, if for no reason it conveniences the parents "wants".
Third, circumcision causes distinct and separate tissue scars most people are not aware of, and many of which affect both mental and physical health as well. Being aware of the visual aesthetics, as well as knowing that someone has to live with those permanently, I'd hope would make some reconsider their default position, if only to question it.

I don't know, I'm just not really seeing the pro-circumcision side too awfully much. I'm circumcised, and I don't mind what I have, but it's stressful to know that I did not have a choice. So, hoping to inform others if, or when they get to make that choice, maybe will get them to think more about it's necessity and practicality.


----------



## Spatel (Aug 22, 2012)

@EchoWolf

Fascinating. So it costs $300 to have a foreskin. We'll see if that study holds up. I'm wary of statistics that try to use the three studies in Africa as an epidemiological model for developed countries. HIV is spread very differently in countries with heterosexual pandemics than it is in developed countries where the disease is sparse. Circumcision does nothing for anal transmission of the virus. I'm checking your link to see if it addresses my concerns, but it doesn't seem to. 

Here are a few more studies I cherry-picked showing a link between decreased sexual function and circumcision. 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x/pdf 


> circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish  men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties                      in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia  and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination                      of these matters in areas where male circumcision  is more common is warranted.




http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract


> Male circumcision removes 33â€“50% of the penile skin, and nearly all of the penile finetouch neuroreceptors [1].





> There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure.  Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives  improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481425 


> There is a statistic difference in the glans penis vibration perception  threshold between normal men and patients with simple redundant prepuce.  The glans penis perception sensitivity decreases after circumcision.



I pose a logic problem to you: 
1) would you be willing to reduce the amount of pleasure you get from sex by say, 10%, in return for $300 spread out over your entire life? 
2) How about 5% in return for $300? 
3) How about 1% in return for $300? 

Bear in mind that $300 is the average, and in real life the cost/benefit equation works a bit differently. In real life it would be that for every hundred circumcisions performed, 98 of them never would've gotten sick, and get nothing from having the circumcision, and 2 are saved from losing tens of thousands of dollars later on.

So let's try that one. Would you be willing to reduce the amount of pleasure you get from sex by 10%, 5%, 1% or so on in return for a 1 in 50 chance at saving yourself tens of thousands in medical care later on?


----------



## softi (Aug 22, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> If only we could get an uncircumcised adult male who has under gone circumcision in here, we'd at last have the final piece to the puzzle ...



Some males who were circumcised as adults say they hate it, and others say they love it.  I think that things like pleasure or self image are things that are really subjective and have more to do with what's going on in the brain than in the penis.

But, the fact that circumcision causes as much drama as it does is proof enough that its a problem and wrong.  And the actual procedure is really bloody and gross, and just everything about it is bad.

It's just funny to watch people on both sides citing medical research articles, as if they're having some kind of debate.  My perception of this "debate" is like watching people argue whether or not the holocaust was good due to some kind of economical benefit or something.  It's really just that bad.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 22, 2012)

...Not sure if softi has mentioned Godwin rule or not...but yes I agree that sexual experience seems to be manufactures and doctored by the brain and expectations of the individual.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 22, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> ...Not sure if softi has mentioned Godwin rule or not...but yes I agree that sexual experience seems to be manufactures and doctored by the brain and expectations of the individual.


I'm sure there's some to do with body image concerning the issue of insecurity by way of physical appearance, but most of what softi just illustrated was more or less a passive strawman to introduce his argument by uninformed opinion via fence sitting. 

I wish he'd get all down and dirty like the rest of us.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 22, 2012)

Meh, I've presented my argument and with the feeling that this may go on for days if I continue I shall through my proverbial towel; not because I have nothing left to say but because I've lost the will to say it. I've already been feeling as though I've been repeating myself a bit so I find it best to leave it at that; plus I've seen enough dicks to last me the next few years. It has been an interesting discussion though I must say. I am however curious to know what the AAP's decision will be in light of the new evidence.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 23, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Meh, I've presented my argument and with the feeling that this may go on for days if I continue I shall through my proverbial towel; not because I have nothing left to say but because I've lost the will to say it. I've already been feeling as though I've been repeating myself a bit so I find it best to leave it at that; plus I've seen enough dicks to last me the next few years. It has been an interesting discussion though I must say. I am however curious to know what the AAP's decision will be in light of the new evidence.



You misspelled "throw" hehe


----------



## Echo Wolf (Aug 23, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> You misspelled "throw" hehe



Auto correct be's a cruel mistress.


----------



## Bambi (Aug 23, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Meh, I've presented my argument and with the feeling that this may go on for days if I continue I shall through my proverbial towel; not because I have nothing left to say but because I've lost the will to say it. I've already been feeling as though I've been repeating myself a bit so I find it best to leave it at that; plus I've seen enough dicks to last me the next few years. It has been an interesting discussion though I must say. I am however curious to know what the AAP's decision will be in light of the new evidence.


You don't need to feel bad for stopping your side of the debate -- fuck dude, you were just being open minded. 

Good to hear from someone on the other side of the fence.


----------



## softi (Aug 23, 2012)

Bambi said:


> You don't need to feel bad for stopping your side of the debate -- fuck dude, you were just being open minded.
> 
> Good to hear from someone on the other side of the fence.



what debate.  theres no debate.  anyone who is pro-circumcision is delusional.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 23, 2012)

softi said:


> Some males who were circumcised as adults say they hate it, and others say they love it.  I think that things like pleasure or self image are things that are really subjective and have more to do with what's going on in the brain than in the penis.
> 
> But, the fact that circumcision causes as much drama as it does is proof enough that its a problem and wrong.  And the actual procedure is really bloody and gross, and just everything about it is bad.
> 
> It's just funny to watch people on both sides citing medical research articles, as if they're having some kind of debate.  My perception of this "debate" is like watching people argue whether or not the holocaust was good due to some kind of economical benefit or something.  It's really just that bad.



Intriguing. The brain is quite the sexual organ as the saying goes. I'm pretty much neutral on the subject now that so much evidence has been presented. It's been fairly edjucational...

Can you imagine what the person who has to do the operation thinks about it? I mean they have to cut it, and depose of the skin-not to mention the blood and risk involved. I could never perform one. But that's a doctor's life for ya I suppose.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Aug 23, 2012)

I may be a girl, but I still have a dick and I wouldn't want it circumcised.
I mean it offers more pleasure, fun to play with, and it'd be like cutting a clit for a girl.
Bad. The only way having a foreskin would be bad is if you're a nasty dude that doesn't know how to keep clean.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 23, 2012)

EdieFantabulous said:


> I may be a girl, but I still have a dick



Call me old-fashioned or anything, but I'm pretty sure having a dick technically makes you a boy.
Identifying as female, on the other hand...

Any way.

The poll results speak for themselves. Anyone that voted that still has the skin, doesn't want to lose it, and the majority of circumcised voters wouldn't recommend it.
I personally don't mind if people would want to do it to themselves, but I don't think anyone should make that choice for anyone else. (Parents, durr)

Luckily, circumcision's not the standard, here


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 23, 2012)

CerbrusNL said:


> Call me old-fashioned or anything, but I'm pretty sure having a dick technically makes you a boy.
> Identifying as female, on the other hand...



The Two souls of native american culture comes to mind for some reason...

We've mentioned North America, Africa, Europe, OZ and the Middle East...but nothing from Asian/Oceanian or South American veiws on the subject. Maybe someone can remedy this?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 23, 2012)

softi said:


> what debate.  theres no debate.  anyone who is pro-circumcision is delusional.



Amazing arguments, you should be president.


----------



## PapayaShark (Aug 23, 2012)

EdieFantabulous said:


> cutting a clit for a girl.



Nope. Cutting of the clitoris is like cutting of the glans. Cutting of the foreskin is like cutting of the clitoral hood.


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Aug 23, 2012)

Well excuuuuse me if I haven't learned the anatomy of a vagina.
Not that I would want to, because I personally find that vaginae are pretty gross looking.
Not so bad to look at on the outside, but when it's spread, it's like "Oh Lawdy!"

*CerbrusNL*: What do you think calling myself a girl is? Obviously not identifying as female, or anything.
Psh technicalities are lame anyway, I mean what good is a fight if won on a technicality?


----------



## PapayaShark (Aug 23, 2012)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Well excuuuuse me if I haven't learned the anatomy of a vagina.
> Not that I would want to, because I personally find that vaginae are pretty gross looking.
> Not so bad to look at on the outside, but when it's spread, it's like "Oh Lawdy!"



But its pretty basic stuff to know that the clitoris is a small penis :I


----------



## CerbrusNL (Aug 23, 2012)

EdieFantabulous said:


> Well excuuuuse me if I haven't learned the anatomy of a vagina.
> Not that I would want to, because I personally find that vaginae are pretty gross looking.
> Not so bad to look at on the outside, but when it's spread, it's like "Oh Lawdy!"



And I always assumed that knowledge about / a certain affection for vaginas would be part of guys identifying as female...

Ah well, can't be right all the time :3


----------



## EdieFantabulous (Aug 23, 2012)

PapayaShark said:


> But its pretty basic stuff to know that the clitoris is a small penis :I



I kinda knew that, but a lot of straight guys don't even know what the clitoris is.
And a lot of girls don't learn to use it. I dunno, never needed to know, don't really care.
It's gross to me none the less.

*CerbrusNL*: Not all trans people want an operation, not all hate their bodies.
It's a spectrum, like light, and sexuality.


----------



## Tiiria (Aug 24, 2012)

Uh, so. This thread - tl;dr.

Personally, I am female, and my boyfriend is male, and he's weird and argues that his circumcision is a good thing because he can last longer in bed. Thing is, him lasting longer in bed means he lasts AGES with himself. And that is DEFINITELY not a good thing.

I'm the one arguing that when we have kids, if we have a boy, we are NOT chopping off part of his body just because it "looks better, is easier to clean, and makes him last longer in bed." I'd like for my son to enjoy sex to the fullest someday. Heck, I'd like him to enjoy masturbation to the fullest. And that is not possible if you chop off bajillions of nerve endings. People who are circumcised last longer because they feel less. HOW IS THAT GOOD?? It's ONLY good if they're an asshole who if they cum first they don't get their partner off afterwards. And there are other things you can do to last longer too.

Looking better is just a matter of opinion.

The other point with it - it being cleaner - is only valid if the man is so lazy he won't take thirty seconds to wash his own penis in the shower. All you gotta do is pull it back and scrub. Honestly.

Also, being a baby, the dude CAN'T give consent. And that's something that unless it's medically necessary, you just don't do to someone. I'm also opposed to circumcision for religious reasons on the basis that your baby should be allowed to choose his own religion when his mind has the capacity to perceive it, rather than be brainwashed and indoctrinated in a religion he might not have wanted to join had he a choice in the matter. Just because you had sex and pushed a kid out of your vagina does not mean you own the thing. Your child is an individual human being and should be treated as such.

/rant


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2012)

Nylak said:


> Is this an inappropriate topic?  Maybe.  Whatever.
> 
> A couple of my lady friends and I have been arguing over this, and since my male sexual conquests are understandably limited and I have few male friends that I can ask this without being looked at like a total weirdo, I don't really know much about this other than stats my friend googled on her iPhone while we were at a bar and then loudly announced to the rest of the customers.
> 
> ...



I voted "I am not circumcised and I would not recommend it to anyone" because I don;t think circumcision should be done unless there is a medical reason for it. For example if the foreskin was too tight and thus causing the male to have issues urinating, then circumcision would obviously be necessary to fix the problem, unless of course there is another surgical procedure I am not aware of.

I am not circumcised, However after I went to see a doctor about a urine infection last year she did note that my foreskin does not pull back as far as it should and said I could have surgery to fix it if I wanted, I declined it because it's not causing any issues so why fix what's not broken?


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> I voted "I am not circumcised and I would not recommend it to anyone" because I don;t think circumcision should be done unless there is a medical reason for it. For example if the foreskin was too tight and thus causing the male to have issues urinating, then circumcision would obviously be necessary to fix the problem, unless of course there is another surgical procedure I am not aware of.
> 
> I am not circumcised, However after I went to see a doctor about a urine infection last year she did note that my foreskin does not pull back as far as it should and said I could have surgery to fix it if I wanted, I declined it because it's not causing any issues so why fix what's not broken?



Ive never had a uti. Musta been awkward having a lady play w your foreskin at docs office xd.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 25, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Ive never had a uti. Musta been awkward having a lady play w your foreskin at docs office xd.



Not really awkward, She is a doctor, she has probably seen more genitals from both genders in her time than I have had hot diners. I also have the attitude that "It needs to be done so do it" She needed to look at my penis to make a proper diagnosis, after all a doctor can't make a diagnosis blind can they? Except bad doctors that tell you it's a virus and to go home only for you to return the next day with it far worse, to see a different doctor and find out it's not a virus.

Duty doctors at night have a habit of doing that exact thing. I think it's their way of telling you politely to fuck off and see your GP in the morning.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 25, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Not really awkward, She is a doctor, she has probably seen more genitals from both genders in her time than I have had hot diners. I also have the attitude that "It needs to be done so do it" She needed to look at my penis to make a proper diagnosis, after all a doctor can't make a diagnosis blind can they? Except bad doctors that tell you it's a virus and to go home only for you to return the next day with it far worse, to see a different doctor and find out it's not a virus.
> 
> Duty doctors at night have a habit of doing that exact thing. I think it's their way of telling you politely to fuck off and see your GP in the morning.



True. Urgent care never helped me lol...


----------



## RetroOctane (Aug 27, 2012)

I don't have an opinion on the subject because I've yet to hear either side make a good argument.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Aug 27, 2012)

RetroOctane said:


> I don't have an opinion on the subject because I've yet to hear either side make a good argument.



What would to consider a good argument then?


----------



## Bambi (Aug 27, 2012)

This just in from CNN, best comment:

"Unfortunately we live in a world where women get to make decisions about circumcision, and men get to make decisions about abortion."

Wonder if that's true. Interesting food for thought.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Aug 27, 2012)

Good lord this thread has some serious amounts of posts on it. I cant believe this topic has had such a turn out. Though on the other hand it is quite a riveting subject. Oh and I am circumcised by the way, i know everyone was quivering with anticipation. Glad i could ease your mind   I didnt have a choice in the matter, i was a baby at the time but im glad i cant remember the experience.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Aug 28, 2012)

I believe in circumcision because it does reduce the threat of STDs, and since memory does not form in infants that small, if done at or near birth, they won't remember the pain of the incision.

I've always wondered if there was a more medical term for the opening at the top of the glans than the term my grandpa used when he was a doctor for the merchant marines in WWII- he called it the "J**'s eye" (it is a very racist term but I think that because he was fighting against them he was justified for using it at the time).


----------



## Commiecomrade (Aug 28, 2012)

I do wish I was not circumcised, but to me it's choosing between something that's generally accepted as more aesthetic and something that could have potentially allowed me to feel more. It took such a long time to realize that my penis wasn't naturally like that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 28, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I believe in circumcision because it does reduce the threat of STDs, and since memory does not form in infants that small, if done at or near birth, they won't remember the pain of the incision.
> 
> I've always wondered if there was a more medical term for the opening at the top of the glans than the term my grandpa used when he was a doctor for the merchant marines in WWII- he called it the "J**'s eye" (it is a very racist term but I think that because he was fighting against them he was justified for using it at the time).



I'm not sure where to begin with this comment...perhaps by pointing out that the merchant marines didn't 'fight against the jews'. 

Circumcision's preventative effect on the transmission of STI's is not considered a valid reason to force the surgery on a child by the general medical establishment. Condoms sex education and medical check-ups also reduce STI transmission, without resorting to surgery on infants.


----------



## DefectiveSpoons (Aug 28, 2012)

I find non circumcised penis disgusting, Not trying to offend anyone I just do. I don't know why, but ewwwohgawdnopenopenope.png


----------



## moonchylde (Aug 28, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure where to begin with this comment...perhaps by pointing out that the merchant marines didn't 'fight against the jews'.



Um... wait, what? I don't think that word was "Jew"...

Not being racist by saying this, just correcting a misunderstanding: I think the term was "Jap's Eye." 

And now back to the pointless debate already in progress.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 28, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> Um... wait, what? I don't think that word was "Jew"...
> 
> Not being racist by saying this, just correcting a misunderstanding: I think the term was "Jap's Eye."
> 
> And now back to the pointless debate already in progress.



Oh I thought J** meant 'jew'. My mistake.


----------



## kobidobidog (Aug 29, 2012)

Nether do I. The KJV has 8 places where it is figuratively the heart  not any part of the sexual organ.   Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26;  Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Religions have a nasty habit of not teaching what is in their own book.


----------



## zachhart12 (Aug 29, 2012)

kobidobidog said:


> Nether do I. The KJV has 8 places where it is figuratively the heart  not any part of the sexual organ.   Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26;  Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Religions have a nasty habit of not teaching what is in their own book.



huh?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Aug 30, 2012)

kobidobidog said:


> Nether do I. The KJV has 8 places where it is figuratively the heart  not any part of the sexual organ.   Deuteronomy 30:6, Deuteronomy 10:16 ;Jeremiah 4:4 , Jeremiah 9:26;  Colossians 2:11-15;Acts 7:51;Leviticus 26:41;Romans 2:29, Religions have a nasty habit of not teaching what is in their own book.



We speak english on this forum, please speak it.


----------



## jagdwolf (Sep 8, 2012)

From the aspect of potential sexually transmitted diseases, I would say getting cut is worth it.   I think the real question is does it affect anything as to feel and performance.   Other than that, most look to their fathers for an answer.


----------



## codfish (Sep 9, 2012)

From what I have heard there is a definite difference in sensation between cut and uncut with uncut receiving more stimulation and lubrication than cut members.
Btw uncut and recremend uncut.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 9, 2012)

jagdwolf said:


> From the aspect of potential sexually transmitted diseases, I would say getting cut is worth it.   I think the real question is does it affect anything as to feel and performance.   Other than that, most look to their fathers for an answer.



STI's isn't any reason to be circumcised. Use protection, clean out under the foreskin regularly too, and their shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 9, 2012)

How the fuck does cutting off the foreskin prevent STDs? Don't you take showers or something?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> How the fuck does cutting off the foreskin prevent STDs? Don't you take showers or something?



The cells on the inside layer of the foreskin are particularly vulnerable to infection, therefore removing them removes part of the mechanism of sexually transmitted infection. 
However a painful surgery on the sex organs really is a phobic response when we live in enlightened times of protective contraception and soap.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 9, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The cells on the inside layer of the foreskin are particularly vulnerable to infection, therefore removing them removes part of the mechanism of sexually transmitted infection.
> However a painful surgery on the sex organs really is a phobic response when we live in enlightened times of protective contraception and soap.



Which brings me back to what I said earlier. All you need to do is wear a cover and wash properly.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 9, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> The cells on the inside layer of the foreskin are particularly vulnerable to infection, therefore removing them removes part of the mechanism of sexually transmitted infection.
> However a painful surgery on the sex organs really is a phobic response when we live in enlightened times of protective contraception and soap.



That is true but if you don't wash your wang regularly you are gonna get genital warts with and without a foreskin  Which is pretty much the reason this whole argument is falling apart in my opinion. Without a foreskin you might be a little less likely to get an STD but proper hygiene and not sticking your dick into anything that moves are pretty good ways to avoid getting them all together so you might as well not bother chopping it off


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 9, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> That is true but if you don't wash your wang regularly you are gonna get genital warts with and without a foreskin  Which is pretty much the reason this whole argument is falling apart in my opinion.



I rarely ever shower and I've never had this problem, despite being uncut.

Although this is probably the reason why I never had the opportunity to get my own STD. :c


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 9, 2012)

Gibby said:


> I rarely ever shower and I've never had this problem, despite being uncut.
> 
> Although this is probably the reason why I never had the opportunity to get my own STD. :c



I can give you some of my gonorrhea if you want it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 9, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19535090

Some people were waiting for the AAP's update, they now say that the health benefits for neonatal circumcision outweigh the procedural risk but that they still don't recommend circumcising all baby boys. 

Furthermore some jews and muslims in germany have protested against the country's increased opposition to religious circumcision. They say it undermines their freedom of religion, surely it undermines the child's freedom of religion to be ritually scarred for a god they may grow up not to believe in.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 9, 2012)

Gibby said:


> *I rarely ever showe*r and I've never had this problem, despite being uncut.
> 
> Although this is probably the reason why I never had the opportunity to get my own STD. :c



Eww?


----------



## nureintier (Sep 9, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> [     Furthermore some jews and muslims in germany have protested against the country's increased opposition to religious circumcision. They say it undermines their freedom of religion, surely it undermines the child's freedom of religion to be ritually scarred for a god they may grow up not to believe in.


 This. I just wish people would be more informed about it and less emotional. I've talked to friends who have male children and they basically have no clue, they just go by what the popular thing to do here is, and misinformation is even spread by doctors about it. (If it was really that unhealthy, wouldn't a lot of Europe just have died off from penis cancer by now?) And as for religious freedom, I'd rather they give the child a chance to grow up and determine their religion rather than forcing their parents' religion upon them in a painful and permanent way (anyone who says it's not painful has apparently never seen it being done, or seen a baby after who screams when his diaper is changed, etc.)


----------



## kaskae (Sep 9, 2012)

Hahaha

Not touching this one.


----------



## I Am That Is (Sep 9, 2012)

I don't pretend to be an expert but to all those saying how horrible it is that infants don't get the choice, I don't neccicary disagree but I have some thoughts. 

I have never felt like "aw damn, I wish my parents didn't deside to get me circumcised!" mainly because the differences are so small. Besides the factor of how it feels, the only advantages I see for not being circomsised are supposedly more sensation during sex and the whole "it's natural" thing. Then again, religious reasons aside, there aren't many pluses to being circomsised either. It's cleaner and from what Ive heard your girl will appreciate it, and if not no less than an un-circomsised penis. To be honest, it makes little to no difference in my life. I don't feel I'm missing anything without a foreskin, and If I had one, I wouldn't wish I didn't.


----------



## nureintier (Sep 9, 2012)

I Am That Is said:


> I don't pretend to be an expert but to all those saying how horrible it is that infants don't get the choice, I don't neccicary disagree but I have some thoughts.   I have never felt like "aw damn, I wish my parents didn't deside to get me circumcised!" mainly because the differences are so small. Besides the factor of how it feels, the only advantages I see for not being circomsised are supposedly more sensation during sex and the whole "it's natural" thing. Then again, religious reasons aside, there aren't many pluses to being circomsised either. It's cleaner and from what Ive heard your girl will appreciate it, and if not no less than an un-circomsised penis. To be honest, it makes little to no difference in my life. I don't feel I'm missing anything without a foreskin, and If I had one, I wouldn't wish I didn't.


 The argument against is not from an aesthetic standpoint: it's the argument that it's a painful, unnecessary aesthetic surgery on a baby boy's dong. The aesthetic argument is ridiculous anyway: why would parents be thinking about their child's dong in that way? If a girl is cool with you until you pull your pants off and sees whether or not you're circ'd and then runs away screaming, she is probably not the type of person you want to be with, anyway.   As for "your girl will appreciate it:" the reason this is said in the US is because it's more common, and people usually aren't used to seeing uncircumcized penises. If they were, I doubt it would make much difference to anybody. Another reason people talk about such things is because of misinformation. Seriously people, there are guys in Europe and elsewhere with uncirc'd penises that still manage to bathe, get laid, and not die of penile cancer. Doctors tell parents that it's necessary here in the US because they want the money from the operation (and possibly also because it's the norm, and parents want their children to be "normal"), not because it is needed from a health standpoint.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 10, 2012)

*Looks at poll* Not circumcised but would recommend it gets 1 vote...

This is a beautiful moment. That category was empty for so long...it has purpose now.


----------



## Project H311H0UND (Sep 10, 2012)

One person voted "Not circumcised but would recommend it"... Why!? I mean really... WHY!?


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 10, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> One person voted "Not circumcised but would recommend it"... Why!? I mean really... WHY!?



to troll
c-c-c-combo breaker
(no, I didn't do it)


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 10, 2012)

Project H311H0UND said:


> One person voted "Not circumcised but would recommend it"... Why!? I mean really... WHY!?



The question is are they rushing down to surgery to get the snip? x3

My guess is they think it's something that should be forced on babies, rather than themselves.


----------



## dragonlover81 (Sep 11, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> Hm. There doesn't seem to be a 'I'm not Circumcised, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever' option.
> 
> Anyway, yeah. I'm not circumcised, and I have no opinion on it whatsoever.



Yeah, I've put "I don't care" or something similar in some of my polls on DeviantArt, and no one ever seems to choose that option.

But seriously, I was circumcised as an infant. Not having been any different, I can't say exactly what effect it has had, but the idea of performing surgery routinely and for no medical reason on those who cannot consent is something I strongly object to. There is no other surgery that we consider it ok to perform routinely, on those who cannot consent, for no particular reason other than tradition or someone's religion (which makes no sense, especially considering that only a small portion of non-medical circumcisions in the US are actually performed by people whose religion says anything about it, though I would go further and say that religion is no excuse to cut off part of someone's body).


----------



## dragonlover81 (Sep 11, 2012)

I Am That Is said:


> It's cleaner and from what Ive heard your girl will appreciate it, and if not no less than an un-circomsised penis. To be honest, it makes little to no difference in my life. I don't feel I'm missing anything without a foreskin, and If I had one, I wouldn't wish I didn't.



So if society felt that everyone should get their big toe amputated in infancy, would you be cool with that? Or is it only because it is supposedly cleaner? Or perhaps the better answer would be the crass one: "Of course your dick is unclean. What would you expect?"


----------



## softi (Sep 12, 2012)

Mentova says that circumcision is a "religious ceremony that should be respected" and he banned me for like a billion years for making fun of it.

therefore, cutting baby penises is good


----------



## Zamobafood (Sep 13, 2012)

Skin or no, the damn thing still works the same way.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Cut at birth and hate it 

No advantages other than easier to clean but not by much. Dont believe the lies about it stoping or helping stop STD's (Including HIV) Its a bunch of BS...


----------



## Traven V (Sep 18, 2012)

Circumcision is bad, all it does it take the sheef away D:


----------



## Aleu (Sep 18, 2012)

softi said:


> Mentova says that circumcision is a "religious ceremony that should be respected" and he banned me for like a billion years for making fun of it.
> 
> therefore, cutting baby penises is good



I'm pretty sure a billion years has not passed. Stop being such a drama queen.


----------



## Mentova (Sep 18, 2012)

softi said:


> Mentova says that circumcision is a "religious ceremony that should be respected" and he banned me for like a billion years for making fun of it.
> 
> therefore, cutting baby penises is good



Maybe next time you should try not posting dumb anti-semitic bullshit and then try to half ass troll me after I infract you? :V


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 18, 2012)

Softi, just shut the fuck up for once please.


----------



## Luca (Sep 18, 2012)

This topic always seems to pop up on forums, furry or not. I am circumcised and I really have no problem with it at all. It wasn't a religious thing because my parents never were. It doesn't bother me because there's nothing I can do to undo it and I don't believe I would if I was able too. I do think it should be the persons choice if they want to be cut or left alone, but I can understand some of the motives behind the parent's choice.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 19, 2012)

Traven V said:


> Circumcision is bad, all it does it take the sheef away D:



What the fuck is a sheef?


----------



## Fallowfox (Sep 19, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> What the fuck is a sheef?



Sheath?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 19, 2012)

Fallowfox said:


> Sheath?



Humans don't have sheaths. >.>


----------



## ADF (Sep 19, 2012)

I was circumcised as a baby under what my parents claim was a clumsy nurse spilling boiling water on it, so they had to circumcise me for medical reasons.

As an adult however, knowing how religious my mother was back then, I have to wonder if they are just BSing me. If it turned out I was needlessly mutilated for life down there on the grounds of someone else's batshit religion, I'd be angry.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 19, 2012)

Randy-Darkshade said:


> Humans don't have sheaths. >.>



You asked what a sheef was and he told you since you apparently cannot turn the word "sheef" into "sheath" in your brain when you say it to yourself.  And he was being silly. Yup...


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 25, 2015)

*insert fat wiener here*


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 25, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> *insert fat wiener here*


I see no fat weiner there


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Aug 25, 2015)

Mayonnaise said:


> I see no fat weiner there


We'll skype later.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 25, 2015)

Butters Shikkon said:


> We'll skype later.


o_o;


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 25, 2015)

Eww foreskin is gross :v

I really miss mine ;_;


----------



## Azure (Aug 25, 2015)

only real forum og's remember kimmersets foreskin


----------

