Circumcision

coffee_cake

Because butchering your children is the cool thing to do

W.Shakes-Beer

RMD wrote: »

I can pull me foreskin up to my belly button. I'd like to see 1 of them freaks try and copy my party trick :pac:

does your flute look like this?

Terry

rubadub wrote: »

Yes, its quite strange that it is so accepted.

Even if there is a medical need it could often be treated by stretching the foreskin, but I suppose this might require a few doctors visits to check on progress, so why not just butcher the child and save a bit of time.

Cutting off part of your gentials full of nerve endings which give sexual pleasure, and skin that keeps the glans more sensitive should be an absolute last resort. Many men are trying to restore their foreskin.

It grows back?

W.Shakes-Beer

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

i think they try to push the head back on itself to give the "effect" of foreskin, but if they push too far they will be left with a gee or somewhere to store a pencil or two.

rubadub

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

Sort of, they stretch it so the skin further down grows longer and in effect becomes a foreskin, I think it restores some of the sensitivity to the glans/tip.


Reading on wiki it seems it can be done surgically too, and some Jews did it to avoid the Nazis.
Warning- some pics of flutes!

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

galwayrush

Terry wrote: »

It grows back?

If something grows back there, be very ****ing worried and go straight to a doctor.:eek:

W.Shakes-Beer

Holy ****! That poor guy halfway down on the right.

tony1kenobi

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

If they wait till the child can talk they'd be told to f*ck off.

Prof.Badass

Jumpy wrote: »

Because it prevents possible issues later in life. Also a hygiene thing.

Circumcision does not prevent masturbation, it just makes it less fun. Stupid, pointless, morally backwards procedure.

Overheal

Terry wrote:

Were you circumcised? If so, how do you feel about it?
Would you prefer to have had the option yourself?

I was circumcised for clinical reasons. My siblings were not circumcised. So it wasn't a Cosmetic Issue.

It grows back?

Not in the traditional sense. But I could see how you could stretch your skin. The same could be said of anywhere on your skin. I've done no research into this, mind but when you think about earrings and such.

orourkeda

Denzil2222 wrote: »

Why on earth do so many americans have their baby boys circumcised ?

because they're jewish?

MonkeyBalls

There are about 20,000 nerves in the foreskin, and only about 4,000 in the head (of ze penis).

Involuntary circumcision is genital mutilation. I pity the poor bastards who, as a innocent child, had part of their cocks chopped off.

It reduces sexual pleasure, which is no laughing matter. And the vast majority of circumcised people will try to delude themselves into believing that they'd choose to have it that way. How else are they to cope. And it gets perpetuated, needlessly. This practise needs to end.

Subtle Troll

Ignorance.

2 stroke

Doctors wanted to circumcise me as a child "for medical reasons". I'm still intact, and won't be booking myself in, as long as I'm capable of enjoying pleasure.
Circumcision is misguided, barbaric and unnecessary in most cases.

policarp

It's supposed to be the kindest cut.
Breaks the frenum and makes sex easier.

Lily10

Subtle Troll wrote: »

Ignorance.

Totally agree. I've been living in the US for years now and you wouldn't believe how clueless they are about it over here. A lot of them are not even aware that EVERY male is not circumcised. As for the ones that are aware it's not the norm in europe, if it's a man - he uses it as a chat up line "hey, wanna see my ...blah blah blah" if it's a woman - she wants you to tell her what an uncircumcised one looks like.. one girl even asked me to draw her a picture wtf!

I have asked mothers over here why they do it to their boys and the answer is always the same.. the dad wants the baby to look like him. Ugh. disturbing on so many levels.

krudler

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

There are about 20,000 nerves in the foreskin, and only about 4,000 in the head (of ze penis).

Involuntary circumcision is genital mutilation. I pity the poor bastards who, as a innocent child, had part of their cocks chopped off.

It reduces sexual pleasure, which is no laughing matter. And the vast majority of circumcised people will try to delude themselves into believing that they'd choose to have it that way. How else are they to cope. And it gets perpetuated, needlessly. This practise needs to end.

Says who?

MonkeyBalls

krudler wrote: »

Says who?

Common fcking sense, that's who

policarp

AFAIK It's a jewish thing.
The foreskin can harbour bacteria and if unwashed in hot climates can be nasty...
Why circumcission? Why not body piercing, tattoos, foot binding,burkas loads of other stigmata that we think of as normal nowadays?

rubadub

policarp wrote: »

It's supposed to be the kindest cut.
Breaks the frenum and makes sex easier.

"kindest cut" WTF:eek:
The frenulum is not always cut, and if you do want it cut you can do it without need for circumcision.

krudler wrote: »

Says who?

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Structural Changes
Among the structural changes circumcised men may have to live with are surgical complications such as skin tags, penile curvature due to uneven foreskin removal, pitted glans, partial glans ablation, prominent/jagged scarring, amputation neuromas, fistulas, severely damaged frenulum, meatal stenosis, and excessive keratinisation. In addition, Immerman and Mackey (1998) and Prescott (1989) postulated that severing of erogenous sensory nerve endings in the foreskin during infancy leads to atrophy of non-stimulated neurons in the brain's pleasure centre during the critical developmental period.Gemmell and Boyle (2001) surveyed 162 self-selected men (121 circumcised; 41 intact) and found that circumcised men reported significantly less penile sensation as compared with genitally intact men. Participants rated their current level of penile sensation (on a scale from 1 to 10) as compared with that experienced at age 18 years (allocated 10 out of 10). Circumcised men complained significantly more often than did genitally intact men of a progressive decline in penile sensation throughout their adult years--presumably due to increasing keratinisation of the exposed glans and inner foreskin remnant in circumcised men. Gemmell and Boyle also found that a significantly higher proportion of circumcised as compared with intact men reported bowing or curvature of the penis (also reported by Lawrence, 1997), shaft skin uncomfortably/painfully tight when erect, and scars/damage to the penis. Although the frenulum was reported as an area of heightened erogenous sensitivity, in the typical circumcised male, either no frenulum remains or only a small severely damaged remnant exists. The complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well-documented (Cold & McGrath, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Fleiss, 1997; Taylor et al., 1996), 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 (Immerman & Mackey, 1998; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999).

Functional Changes
There are also serious functional consequences of circumcision. Impaired sexual functioning was reported by 84% of respondents in a survey of circumcised men (Hammond, 1997). Taylor, Lockwood, and Taylor (1996) provided anatomical and histological support for these self-reports of circumcised men by documenting the irreplaceable loss of specialised erogenous mucosa through circumcision. Further difficulties attributed to circumcision included intimacy problems (45%) and addiction/dependency problems (26%). Specific physical problems reported included glans insensitivity (55%), need for excess stimulation to enable ejaculation (38%), prominent scarring (29%), and insufficient residual shaft skin to accommodate full, untethered erections (27%).

Circumcised males may also be at risk of premature ejaculation, or alternatively may have to resort to prolonged thrusting during intercourse in order to stimulate sufficiently the residual erogenous penile nerve endings to trigger ejaculation (Bensley & Boyle, 2001). They report that the unnatural dryness of their circumcised penis often makes coitus painful, resulting in chafing and/or skin abrasions (Gemmell & Boyle, 2001). Concomitantly, O'Hara and O'Hara (1999) found that female partners reported significantly greater sexual pleasure from intercourse with genitally intact men as compared with circumcised men. Money and Davison (1983) had previously documented a loss of stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an associated diminution in sexual response, thereby restricting a circumcised man's ability to achieve arousal. Consequently, erectile dysfunction may be a complication of male circumcision (Glover, 1929; Ozkara, Asicioglu, Alici, Akkus, & Hattat, 1999; Palmer & Link, 1979; Stief, Thon, Djamilian, Allhoff, & Jonas, 1992; Stinson, 1973).

Bensley and Boyle (2001) surveyed women and gay men who had previously had sexual intercourse with both genitally intact and circumcised men. Bensley and Boyle's samples comprised 35 women, and 42 gay men. In addition they surveyed 83 self-selected men (53 circumcised; 30 genitally intact) who provided self-reports regarding their sexual and psychological functioning. The overall results (women partners and gay male partners combined) were that circumcised partners were significantly less happy about their sexual functioning than were genitally intact partners.

In Bensley and Boyle's (2001) study, sexual dysfunction was more often reported by circumcised men who complained either of premature ejaculation (with little sexual sensation), and/or difficulty in gaining or maintaining an erection--the two most prevalent forms of erectile dysfunction. Reduced or insufficient neural feedback may account for circumcised men's inability to detect the moment when ejaculation is imminent. Premature ejaculation previously has been ascribed to learning or conditioning factors. For example, where a teenage boy is raised in an environment in which sexual pleasure is regarded as "sinful or dirty" he may have to hurry masturbation in order to avoid being "caught in the act." Premature ejaculation would therefore be negatively reinforced by avoiding an aversive or punitive consequence (cf. Schwartz & Reisberg, 1991, pp. 121-122). However, information is now emerging on the role of the prepuce in preventing premature ejaculation, wherein the foreskin serves to protect the corona of the glans penis from direct stimulation during intercourse (Halata & Munger, 1986; Zwang, 1997). Overall, circumcised men expressed significantly greater dissatisfaction with their sex lives than did genitally intact men. This result is consistent with the findings by Hammond (1997, 1999), and O'Hara and O'Hara (1999), that circumcision may impede psychosexual and emotional intimacy between partners.

saa

Its not an issue of hygiene until the foreskin retracts, Edit: and then shower and you won't have hygiene issues.

A circumcised Canada man once told me how disgusting it is that parents would have to clean under their childs foreskin with ear buds... bullsh*t. And then his stance was really why wouldnt you do it, I asked well why and he said I don't know its just normal.


Not against circumcision if consent is given above the age of 16-18+ (so they can make an informed decision of the risks some stated in the above post) the same goes for any unnecessary surgical procedure which is done mostly for religious, cosmetic and societal reasons well shame and disguist.

Cosmetic surgery should be used to correct the body to its previous state, ie. after an accident or 30 pounds of excess skin fair enough.


And if you wouldn't want to go through the pain or financial costs of getting a circumcision after the age of consent then you don't need or want it that bad or else the benefits are miniscule so why do it...


My Canadian friend also didn't know he had received a surgical procedure as such and then told me how men with foreskins have all sorts of problems with them, which is really rare. So who's agenda is he siding with?

I'm not saying its wrong its wrong its wrong, others shouldnt say its right its right its right, because you don't know if its right for someone else so surely the individual should decide.

When did choice become an issue, any of the unfounded medical benefits won't matter until they reach a certain age, basically let your child come to you and say its a problem, children don't see it as a problem, intact men don't see it as a problem, the medical profession doesnt see it as a problem so why would you?


funny little social quirk there.

kylith

Overheal wrote: »

Not in the traditional sense. But I could see how you could stretch your skin. The same could be said of anywhere on your skin. I've done no research into this, mind but when you think about earrings and such.

you certainly can stretch the skin of your penis and 'regrow' it. But it does take months, if not more. All you do is stretch the skin down and tape it in place, you can use weights too if you want to stretch it faster.

Speaking as a woman there's really no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised except in the 'manual handling' portion of foreplay. I'd prefer a partner with a foreskin as there are several tricks that can be done with it, and I'm less worried about causing discomfort.

Chuck Stone

Its a disgusting barbaric act carried out by disgusting barbaric people.

It's mutilating children because an imaginary man in the sky said so.

Fucking pathetic morons.

Greentopia

kylith wrote: »

Speaking as a woman there's really no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised except in the 'manual handling' portion of foreplay. I'd prefer a partner with a foreskin as there are several tricks that can be done with it, and I'm less worried about causing discomfort.

I'm female too and my last partner is circumcised and I didnotice a difference during sex. Without going into too much detail it meant things didn't go as, em, 'smoothly' as they should have initially, but he's good in bed otherwise so that made up for it

And yes I was initially a bit concerned about causing discomfort too but it just meant I had to 'handle' matters a little bit more gently.

Saila

so only jewish guys do porn


as for the "it makes sensation better though" brigade

yeah? but only while its still new and you get use to it, like walking barefoot your skin hardens to it and sensation goes back down

Micky Dolenz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Its a disgusting barbaric act carried out by disgusting barbaric people.

It's mutilating children because an imaginary man in the sky said so.

Fucking pathetic morons.

That post just reeks of ignorance and hatred,

I wouldn't be a big fan of it and only consider it on medical grounds. But I do recognise that different cultures do it for different reasons and I wouldn't necessary knock them for it.

Chuck Stone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That post just reeks of ignorance and hatred,

I wouldn't be a big fan of it and only consider it on medical grounds. But I do recognise that different cultures do it for different reasons and I wouldn't necessary knock them for it.

I'm all for freedom and people having the right to pursue whatever fantasies they want but when it crosses the line and expresses itself as taking a sharp implement and removing parts of children's genetalia then no - you don't deserve the freedom to inflict such barbarism on kids.

Ignorance and hatred of brutalising innocent children?

Yeah I'll take that.

I would say that you are weak-kneed if you think that allowing the mutilation of babies and children, because of religious edict, is acceptable in the 21st century.

No. Just no.

Micky Dolenz

Removing foreskin is hardly mutilation.

Greentopia

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I wouldn't be a big fan of it and only consider it on medical grounds. But I do recognise that different cultures do it for different reasons and I wouldn't necessary knock them for it.

Why not? just because something is a culturally accepted practice doesn't make it right. I would assume you would agree that female genital mutilation is wrong and something to be rightly criticised so why not male? It's also unnecessary mutilation of the genitalia.

Chuck Stone

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Removing foreskin is hardly mutilation.

Um.. yes.. yes it is.

We're not talking about trimming finger nails here.

Kids die because of geneital mutilation. Lots of kids.

Hundreds of kids in the US end up dead because of circumcision



.