Circumcision.

[irmerk]

I find this topic quite fascinating since the majority - not by far at all - of men in America are circumcised yet the vast majority of men in the world are not, as well as many other reasons such as everyone's overwhelming concern for and disdain towards female circumcision in contrast to their acceptance and even support for male genital mutilation. The best video series explaining the history and current opinions on male circumcision was here. The following parts can be found in the related videos as you watch through them.

Basically, there is no medical justification and no medical organization supports it. The traditional justifications are just fucking dumb and invalid. They literally rip the foreskin from the penis because at the young age of which it is done, the penis has not fully grown. This seems a bit barbaric, does it not? Past reasons were to stifle the sexual drive of men. Wow. The male penis has around 20,000 nerve endings which are cut off through circumcision, leaving around 4,000 left on a calloused head. Moreover, the major reason against any justification of male circumcision is informed consent. I always hear women or couples saying they want to research it, or they were informed that it is medically beneficial, and they wanted to be informed in order to make the decision. Most will admit the child, when grown to be in his twenties, would not do this on his own. How do these people not fucking understand that they are cutting off a part of the body - most likely quite important to the person - of someone else without their consent, especially in the light of the boy almost definitely not doing it himself when given the choice himself?

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Actually its not the vast majority. Last I heard it was below 50%

Now I'm a chick so my take on it is a little different than say a mans. I'm 100% against it and think it should only be done for valid medical reasons, such as if the foreskin is too small and constricts the penis or it becomes routinely infected due to... well there is a variety of reasons I don't feel like looking it up its late

Now for my opinion on it sexually. I rather be with a guy who is uncut than cut.

To me its an act of mutilation and thus, wrong. Religion should not be used as a reason to mutilate anyone. What if there was a religious text that demanded that the left hand of every infant born was removed because it is the hand of evil? I doubt anyone would be cool with that.

To give a brief non scientific rundown of the guys I know. 2 are cut four are not. Why do I know this? I'm not shy about odd questions Actually the two guys I know that ARE cut are my brothers. Which makes me frown at my parents.

I think the first reason I hear fathers use to circumcise their son is "I don't want them to stand out int he locker room." this is based on the assumption that circumcision is the norm. I'll have to do some more research on the actual numbers but I think I remember it being like... 48% but its late... I could be wrong.

I'll come back when I'm more awake to do my research!



PS: I'm also against docking a dogs tail or ears and declawing cats mutilation is wrong!... well unless the person gets it willingly... I knew this one chick with a split tongue.....

 

[irmerk]

Around 48% is right, but that is in the U.S. In the world, it is actually 86% that are uncircumcised.

You're right, the 'standing out in the crowd/locker room' argument is one of the common ones, yet still fucking dumb. If the boy does not want to stand out in the locker room where the percentage of boys with foreskin to those without is practically... Half, then let the fucking kid decide that when he is in his upper teens. Blah! He will not stand out, it is not the parents decision to make, and even if he did stand out, it would not constitute or justify cutting part of his penis off. Besides, where the fuck are these locker rooms? I was never exposed to a locker room where I had to look at other people's penises. If I did, I would likely suspect them to make fun of me for having part of my fucking penis cut off rather than make fun of me because I can actually feel with my penis and it is not a calloused, worthless piece of flesh save for the frenulum. Fuckers.

 

[enterman]

This reminds me of a scene out of a movie (cannot remember the name). KKK members were assaulting an Indian boy at a school who was performing the lead role in the school's play. Later in the movie they lured the entire group of KKK members (about 25 guys I think) into the gym at the school which was filled with 100's of Indians that lived in the town. They forcibly gave every KKK member a circumcision, some of these guys were in their 40's and 50's lol. Hilarious scene but my point is, that scene demonstrates how Circumcision is literally a form of torture.

 

[MachineSp1rit]

2 are cut four are not. Why do I know this? I'm not shy about odd questions Actually the two guys I know that ARE cut are my brothers. Which makes me frown at my parents.

meaning u can defiantly feel the uncut men =))))

i thot that only jews were cut :S

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It seems silly to get mad about it. It seems to have pluses and minuses, and to not really matter either way. It is especially silly to call it "male genital mutilation" when you are incorrectly comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation.

 

[irmerk]

i tho[ugh]t that only [J]ews were cut :S

Watch the video series find the answer to this.

It seems silly to get mad about it. It seems to have pluses and minuses, and to not really matter either way. It is especially silly to call it "male genital mutilation" when you are incorrectly comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation.

There are hardly any pluses and many, many minuses, which means it is overall bad. A few examples I have already said: It harms the child, it removes nearly four fifths of all feeling from the penis, it is usually a superstitious tradition, and it does not even consider the child's choice (In all likelihood, the boy would not decide to get himself circumcised if given the choice). And... How is it incorrect to compare male genital mutilation to female genital mutilation?

 

[PJDesseyn]

Yet another reason why Europeans think Americans are weird and not so bright...

Here in Europe, we don't just cut things off, unless it's for medical reasons, like gangrene or something...I also don't remember checking the guys' dicks in the locker rooms, to see if they were circumcised or not...

So my advise is: learn from us Europeans. Been there, done that, bad idea. (and yes, this is more of an advice to those who aren't here...)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

There are hardly any pluses and many, many minuses, which means it is overall bad. A few examples I have already said: It harms the child, it removes nearly four fifths of all feeling from the penis, it is usually a superstitious tradition, and it does not even consider the child's choice (In all likelihood, the boy would not decide to get himself circumcised if given the choice). And... How is it incorrect to compare male genital mutilation to female genital mutilation?

Because one destroys sexual pleasure, and the other one doesn't? To be an accurate comparison, male circumcision would have to remove some of the actual penis, and not just the extra skin. And sure as hell it doesn't "remove nearly four fifths of all feeling from the penis," that's just silly. There's no extra fun in a foreskin... which makes me wonder about the general motivation of the sort of people obsessed with not having a foreskin. I am starting to think it is all about feeling like something is missing, which would have more to do with feelings on inadequacy or insecurity about their junk. I'm not saying that's YOUR motivation, BTW.

As a funny/interesting sort of side note, there is an actual medical female circumcision done right here in America, and I assume in most other Western countries. You know what for? To IMPROVE SENSATION for the woman. If all the feeling was in the skin, why would women want to get rid of it?

 

[irmerk]

The foreskin, like I said, has somewhere around 20,000 of the 24,000 nerve endings in the penis. Cutting off the foreskin, which has 'extra fun' (actually 'the whole fun'), does destroy sexual pleasure.

I would not know what they cut off in the increased pleasure female circumcision, but the point there would be that the women could choose to.

The feeling is not of inadequacy... If you were too lazy to inform yourself on the subject through at least the video I provided, here is another which is shorter and only to one point.

 

[Josan]

Because one destroys sexual pleasure, and the other one doesn't? To be an accurate comparison, male circumcision would have to remove some of the actual penis, and not just the extra skin. And sure as hell it doesn't "remove nearly four fifths of all feeling from the penis," that's just silly. There's no extra fun in a foreskin... which makes me wonder about the general motivation of the sort of people obsessed with not having a foreskin. I am starting to think it is all about feeling like something is missing, which would have more to do with feelings on inadequacy or insecurity about their junk. I'm not saying that's YOUR motivation, BTW.

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and has much, much more nerve endings than the rest of the genitalia, that's like claiming the clitoris has nothing to do with the pleasure of sex becuase it's just skin (it contains about 8000 nerve endings btw).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The foreskin, like I said, has somewhere around 20,000 of the 24,000 nerve endings in the penis. Cutting off the foreskin, which has 'extra fun' (actually 'the whole fun'), does destroy sexual pleasure.

No, it doesn't. You're just speaking from ignorance at this point. I've heard all of this stupidity before, INCLUDING the "you need to educate yourself" riff.

This is obviously an emotional issue for you. Maybe you need to get a hobby besides looking in your pants and feeling cheated? :lol:

(come on... it is just too easy to resist joking about, and you HAVE to admit that it is a kind of funny conversation!)

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and has much, much more nerve endings than the rest of the genitalia, that's like claiming the clitoris has nothing to do with the pleasure of sex becuase it's just skin (it contains about 8000 nerve endings btw).

No, it isn't. It is extra skin that gets out of the way as soon as you start having sex. It is just extra skin, and doesn't contribute much if anything to the experience.

 

[MachineSp1rit]

i often write thot instead of though for short and never bother about capitals when typing.

keep on guys.

 

[You]

I just wanna say that *my* penis has about 70,000 nerve endings.



Because, you know, it's so big.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I just wanna say that *my* penis has about 70,000 nerve endings.



Because, you know, it's so big.

Or as you explain to your partners, that's why it is over so fast! :lol:

 

[You]

Or as you explain to your partners, that's why it is over so fast! :lol:

Guilty as charged. When it comes to sex with my partners, the hours just fly by...

 

[irmerk]

The foreskin, like I said, has somewhere around 20,000 of the 24,000 nerve endings in the penis. Cutting off the foreskin ... does destroy sexual pleasure.

No, it doesn't. You're just speaking from ignorance at this point. I've heard all of this stupidity before, INCLUDING the "you need to educate yourself" riff.

Obviously you do, because it does destroy sexual pleasure by removing, again, four fifths of the nerve endings and creating a calloused head. You can see how you need to educate yourself by what you say here:

No, it isn't. It is extra skin that gets out of the way as soon as you start having sex. It is just extra skin, and doesn't contribute much if anything to the experience.

Try watching the provided videos for information on this, especially the second one that shows that the skin cut off through circumcision is the most sensitive part, and protects what would become calloused through circumcision. Also, "for circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis ... for uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision,all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis." (LiveScience) Furthermore, no medical association recommends neonatal circumcision, and in fact the American Medical Association stated in 1999: "Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice." (AMA)

Other than the fact that it removes nerves and destroys part of the pleasure, the main point is described well by "opponents of circumcision question[ing] the ethical validity of removing healthy, functioning genital tissue from a minor, arguing that infant circumcision infringes upon individual autonomy and represents a human rights violation." (The Ethical Canary)(InterScience)(BMJ)

This is obviously an emotional issue for you. Maybe you need to get a hobby besides looking in your pants and feeling cheated? :lol:

It is kind of funny you say this because "Goldman (1999) discussed the possible trauma of circumcision on children and parents, anxieties over the circumcised state, a tendency to repeat the trauma, and suggested a need on the part of circumcised doctors to find medical justifications for the procedure," (InterScience) while "Milos and Macris (1992) argue that circumcision encodes the perinatal brain with violence and negatively affects infant-maternal bonding and trust."(CRL)

At this point I will just start copying whole paragraphs and such for you, for educational purposes. Taylor et al described the foreskin in detail, documenting a ridged band of mucosal tissue. They stated "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."(InterScience) In 1999, Cold and Taylor stated "The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function."(CRL) Boyle et al, state that "The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings,many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."(CRL) The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."(AAP)

More to your point of getting out of the way: The term 'gliding action' is used in some papers to describe the way the foreskin moves during sexual intercourse. This mechanism was described by Lakshamanan & Prakash in 1980, stating that "[t]he outer layer of the prepuce in common with the skin of the shaft of the penis glides freely in a to and fro fashion..."(CRL) Several opponents of circumcision have argued that the gliding movement of the foreskin is important during sexual intercourse.(NCBI) Warren & Bigelow claim that gliding action would help to reduce vaginal dryness and that restoration of the gliding action is an important advantage of foreskin restoration.(CRL) O'Hara describes the gliding action, stating that it reduces friction during sexual intercourse, and suggesting that it adds "immeasurably to the comfort and pleasure of both parties".(Wikipedia) Taylor suggests that the gliding action, where it occurs, may stimulate the nerves of the ridged band(CRL), and speculates that the stretching of the frenulum by the rearward gliding action during penetration triggers ejaculation.(CFP)

(come on... it is just too easy to resist joking about, and you HAVE to admit that it is a kind of funny conversation!)

No, it really is not. It is a complete imposition of irreversible changes of physical pleasure and nerve factors on an unable to consent child which also could lead to emotional and psychological problems with absolutely no valid justification.

People usually say it reduces the risk of STD spreading and such, yet the percentage chance seems to be lower than the risk of complication on the circumcision itself. This is all beside the point of any medical association confessing circumcision is not an alternative to preventative measures, thus practically making it a useless practice.

So, since I can continue and continue to provide quotes and information and sources and videos (which you probably still have not watched), let me stop and recap: Circumcision removes the majority of nerve endings, creates a calloused head, decreases pleasure, does not provide sufficient - or pretty much any - medical benefits, and is a humans rights issue of already said violation of a child's body.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Do you have a foreskin?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

So, since I can continue and continue to provide quotes and information and sources and videos (which you probably still have not watched), let me stop and recap: Circumcision removes the majority of nerve endings, creates a calloused head, decreases pleasure, does not provide sufficient - or pretty much any - medical benefits, and is a humans rights issue of already said violation of a child's body.

You can keep repeating it, and it will still be wrong and mostly silly.

And, frankly if you can't have a sense of humor about it, but instead get more and more worked up about a non-issue, then maybe we should just stop now.