Circumcision.

[irmerk]

Do you have a foreskin?

No, I do not.

Are you going to address any of the points I made or admit you really did not know what you were talking about - speaking of speaking from ignorance - or anything of the like? Be creative.

My point still stands, no child should be circumcised. If they grow up and choose to themselves, then great - it is their choice. There is no medical justification on top of the fact that it vastly reduces sensitivity and pleasure.

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

You have yet to show how it is wrong and silly, while I have already more than once shown why I am right and mostly serious.

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.

I have already explained how it is not a humorous subject and that it is a serious issue and not to be discredited. Unless you can show otherwise, just saying, "It's a funny subject and a non-issue" does not mean anything...

 

[Mazzerkhan]

Whist I do not agree with the circumcision of babies at all, may I just say that husband had it done about 10 years ago for medical reasons..and he says it made no difference (but maybe that down to me snigger snigger).

 

[JBeukema]

the foreskin reduces negative friction during sex; to remove it is to hinder the pleasure of aman;s partners

Why is if that when poor muslim countries mutilate the genitalia of their children, we get outraged- yet when jews ans neoxtians mutilate the genitalia of their sons as a sign of their delusion, it's par for the course?

 

[irmerk]

Whist I do not agree with the circumcision of babies at all, may I just say that husband had it done about 10 years ago for medical reasons..and he says it made no difference (but maybe that down to me snigger snigger).

I do not want to make the impression that it always makes it worse and that is the absolute, because I am sure people, like in your case, do not regret it. The first and foremost point is that he chose to, as well as the medical reasons behind it. The second point is that it does remove a shit load of nerve endings. Thirdly, for the most part, it reduces sexual pleasure and just plain sensitivity.

the foreskin reduces negative friction during sex; to remove it is to hinder the pleasure of aman;s partners

Why is if that when poor muslim countries mutilate the genitalia of their children, we get outraged- yet when jews ans neoxtians mutilate the genitalia of their sons as a sign of their delusion, it's par for the course?

Exactly what I have said... Kind of strange.

 

[JBeukema]

Careful, now, agreeing with me will make you enemies

 

[irmerk]

Agreeing with you is the same as agreeing with anyone, it is contingent on what is said. Surprisingly, what you said this time is actually valid.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

While I agree that female circumcision is far worse than male circumcision both are forms of mutilation regardless.

Something someone is born with is removed for no medically valid reasons... thus... mutilation.

There are also different forms of female circumcision. Just removing the clitoral hood all the way to literally removing all of the external female genitals. IE: the labia, clitoris and then sewing up the region leaving a small hole for urination and menses.

One is the greater evil sure but that doesn't excuse cutting off a part of the human's for no better reason than vanities sake.

Sorry Joe but I think you're talking out of your ass on this matter. Are you completely wrong? No. But you aren't very correct either.

The only medical reasons to remove the foreskin typically involve it being too small and thus constricting the penis or an infection. These reasons tend to be because it developed abnormally. However a fully normal human penis doesn't require a foreskin removal.

The most common reason given is: Its more sanitary.

That is a lie. The foreskin secretes a chemical to help keep the area clean and bacteria free. However clearly if the male never does any personal hygiene it can get icky. But that more has to do with personal responsibility than health.


I have done research on it. Why?.... I'm crazy. Better reason? I often write from the male perspective so I like to do a lot of research.



If you give a reason Joe for why you think its a crock of shit we'll take you seriously. But you can't just say "You're wrong" and expect that to be enough. Show us why we're wrong!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You have yet to show how it is wrong and silly, while I have already more than once shown why I am right and mostly serious.

No, you really haven't. You've quoted a bunch of stuff.

Here, do an experiment. Touch a patch of skin anywhere else on your body, except make sure you don't touch the head of your penis, or the first bit of the shaft right below the head. Rub your scrotum, rub just the skin around the base of your penis. Get your elbow into the action. Massage the skin behind your knees, or your earlobes.

Let us know when you have an orgasm... in the name of science! :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Whist I do not agree with the circumcision of babies at all, may I just say that husband had it done about 10 years ago for medical reasons..and he says it made no difference (but maybe that down to me snigger snigger).

Or maybe because it isn't a magical patch of skin, it is just skin like skin anywhere else.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

No, you really haven't. You've quoted a bunch of stuff.

Here, do an experiment. Touch a patch of skin anywhere else on your body, except make sure you don't touch the head of your penis, or the first bit of the shaft right below the head. Rub your scrotum, rub just the skin around the base of your penis. Get your elbow into the action. Massage the skin behind your knees, or your earlobes.

Let us know when you have an orgasm... in the name of science! :lol:

WOAH WOAH WOAH. Sorry Joe but that's retarded. That's like suggesting the clitoris is 'just a patch of skin' and I'd be FINE if it was removed.

Are you cut?

Different parts of our body have more or less nerve endings. Take nipples for example. They're very sensitive. Compare that to say... the skin on your elbow. The ear lobes are actually an erogenous zone for many people... not me though... ears are weird... However their sensitivity doesn't instantly translate into sexual pleasure. Our fingers and hands are very sensitive but I don't think anyone gets off rubbing their hands together... though there might be one.

Is the foreskin a magical piece of skin? No. No part of our body is. Is it a part of the sexual experience and thus holds a valid role in sexual pleasure? Yes.

Most of your counter points are non scientific and mocking. If you don't want to actually debate the topic we have plenty of others. Just calling us dumb or silly or overreaction (I'll admit he's passionate about it but that's not something to be ashamed of)

He's given actual research. You've given... mocking derision.

 

[irmerk]

No, you really haven't. You've quoted a bunch of stuff.

I guess I will have to re-quote myself, since you refuse to read what I have said:

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.

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... 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?

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.

Watch the video series find the answer to this.

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?

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.

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)

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)

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.

My point still stands, no child should be circumcised. If they grow up and choose to themselves, then great - it is their choice. There is no medical justification on top of the fact that it vastly reduces sensitivity and pleasure.

The first and foremost point is that he chose to, as well as the medical reasons behind it. The second point is that it does remove a shit load of nerve endings. Thirdly, for the most part, it reduces sexual pleasure and just plain sensitivity.

Notice I quoted a few things that were kind of repetitive - much like me quoting these things you should have read yourself - so that maybe this time you can read them. Now it is all in one post, making it easy for you. Might I remind you to take the time to educate yourself through the videos I posted earlier in this thread, for they are quite informative.

Here, do an experiment. Touch a patch of skin anywhere else on your body, except make sure you don't touch the head of your penis, or the first bit of the shaft right below the head. Rub your scrotum, rub just the skin around the base of your penis. Get your elbow into the action. Massage the skin behind your knees, or your earlobes.

Like I have already said and or quoted, the sensitive part of the circumcised penis is the parts left behind of the foreskin, such as the frenulum. Actually, when I rub the head of my penis I feel literally almost nothing. So, again, you are saying nerve ending concentrations have nothing to do with sensitivity. Wow.

Or maybe because it isn't a magical patch of skin, it is just skin like skin anywhere else.

I will repeat myself: So, again, you are saying nerve ending concentrations have nothing to do with sensitivity. Wow.

 

[JBeukema]

WOAH WOAH WOAH. Sorry Joe but that's retarded. That's like suggesting the clitoris is 'just a patch of skin' a

he must be a virgin and/or a homosexual... or a eunuch...
.[/quote]


I assure you that none of my girlfriends' clitorises (correct plural?) were 'just a patch of skin'; we were always able both to discern a significant different between her genitalia and her elbows

 

[ImprobableJoe]

WOAH WOAH WOAH. Sorry Joe but that's retarded. That's like suggesting the clitoris is 'just a patch of skin' and I'd be FINE if it was removed.

Are you cut?

Different parts of our body have more or less nerve endings.

That's right. Thousands of years of people without any loss of pleasure or sensitivity, personal experience, common sense... AND ridicule! :lol:

You're right that different parts of our body have different amounts of nerves, and different wiring to the brain... and the penis (and clitoris) is wired for pleasure, while the skin around it is just skin, and is wired like all other skin... it isn't uncomfortable to have a foreskin, but it sure as hell doesn't give people magical pleasure that people without it don't get.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I guess I will have to re-quote myself, since you refuse to read what I have said:

Repetition doesn't make it true. Anti-circumcision folks are just as fringe as anti-vaccination folks... and you've all got lots and lots of people you can quote, but the major medical organizations don't point to most of what you're claiming. No loss of function, minimal risk. Minimal benefit too, so feel free not to circumcise your kids.

Again, and not to be mean to anyone, and not singling out anyone... but if you look in your pants and see something that is inadequate, incomplete, "ruined" or anything else negative like that, the problem likes not in your lack of foreskins, but in yourselves.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

That's right. Thousands of years of people without any loss of pleasure or sensitivity, personal experience, common sense... AND ridicule! :lol:

You're right that different parts of our body have different amounts of nerves, and different wiring to the brain... and the penis (and clitoris) is wired for pleasure, while the skin around it is just skin, and is wired like all other skin... it isn't uncomfortable to have a foreskin, but it sure as hell doesn't give people magical pleasure that people without it don't get.

I disagree strongly. Again I reiterate that it isn't a magical patch of skin but it does have a good deal of nerve endings and serves to add pleasure to the sexual experience. It isn't as if I'm suggesting that by cutting it off a guy then will never be able to achieve orgasm again. You yourself are cut and thus have no place to say anything about its value to sex, unless you were cut recently.

You have given us nothing to sway us from our opinion. Nada, zip, zilch. Continuing to belittle us because of our opinion doesn't help your argument. I'm not sure if you're just trying to be contentious for fun or what.

The foreskin isn't just a patch of normal skin nestled around the head of the penis. Next you're going to say my labia is just there for show? The foreskin is very soft, sensitive and highly flexible. It is not just there for no real purpose. It is to protect the glands of the penis and keep it in a moist enclosed environment as well as to add stimulation.

It is not the soul source of stimulation nor is it to be ignored and neglected!!!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It is not the soul source of stimulation nor is it to be ignored and neglected!!!

There are so many jokes I could make at this point...

Instead, I will just note that I'm 34 years old, I have a foreskin, and when I have sex it just gets out of the way and doesn't do anything in particular for my pleasure.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

There are so many jokes I could make at this point...

Instead, I will just note that I'm 34 years old, I have a foreskin, and when I have sex it just gets out of the way and doesn't do anything in particular for my pleasure.

Then you clearly need more skilled partners. *suggestive wink*

 

[irmerk]

You're right that different parts of our body have different amounts of nerves, and different wiring to the brain... and the penis (and clitoris) is wired for pleasure, while the skin around it is just skin, and is wired like all other skin... it isn't uncomfortable to have a foreskin, but it sure as hell doesn't give people magical pleasure that people without it don't get.

People without a foreskin can not feel the pleasure that people with it can. What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying they can? Or that people with foreskin feel nothing more than those circumcised?

Repetition doesn't make it true. Anti-circumcision folks are just as fringe as anti-vaccination folks... and you've all got lots and lots of people you can quote, but the major medical organizations don't point to most of what you're claiming. No loss of function, minimal risk. Minimal benefit too, so feel free not to circumcise your kids.

No, I never said repetition would make me right. Actually, if you had read what I had said, I was repeating myself in the hopes you might read it this time. How are anti-circumcision people just like anti-vaccination people? I actually do not know anything about anti-vaccination concepts. I actually was not quoting just random people. I actually quoted scientific studies as sources and myself as educated conclusions. I am still waiting for a better set of information from you, proving me wrong, or something else... I do not think I said anything about loss of function - as in ability to orgasm - but I did mention the minimal risk. I actually, if you had read, mentioned how the minimal benefits are not as likely as the minimal risks. The point is, about me feeling free not to circumcise my children, is that it is not my choice to make. Did you miss that or are you just refusing to address the point?

Again, and not to be mean to anyone, and not singling out anyone... but if you look in your pants and see something that is inadequate, incomplete, "ruined" or anything else negative like that, the problem likes not in your lack of foreskins, but in yourselves.

Again, this has been addressed by me throughout this entire thread, but you really have not addressed what I have said and have demonstrated a lack of knowledge in what I have said which only leads me to conclude you have not read any of what I have said. Even if you were right, my point that it is not the parents choice to circumcise the child stands because they are responsible for that inadequate feeling in ones self. Still, try reading what I have said again and apply that to the idea of yours about the lack of foreskin not removing any feeling, sensation or pleasure or just address what I have said instead of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong" and assuming that finishes the matter.

Instead, I will just note that I'm 34 years old, I have a foreskin, and when I have sex it just gets out of the way and doesn't do anything in particular for my pleasure.

Well, that is just enough information and authority for me! Wow!

 

[darthrender2010]

I've seen this same trend from ImprobableJoe in many other threads; he doesn't address the question but blows it off as wrong and laughs at it and anyone who thinks contrary to himself.

Seriously dude, you're acting like an immature prick who doesn't want to think that he might be wrong for one second. Stop acting like a fundie, it isn't becoming of you.

 

[acerba]

You took the bait =(

On a slightly more serious note, irmerk's stuff was pretty interesting.