Circumcision???

My name is URL

Pedant wrote: »

No, it's not only religious as far as I know. Some people naively believe that it will improve their sex lives.

That's all well and good.. but let an 18 yo decide whether or not it would improve their sex lives.

Why in the name of jaysus would a parent even be thinking about the future sex lives of their infant child? It's quite a messed up thought process imo.

philologos

This poll is pretty limited. My answer is, I'm a male and I'm neither for nor against circumcision.

Pedant wrote: »

No, it's not only religious as far as I know. Some people naively believe that it will improve their sex lives.

I've heard some atheists say that circumcision will ruin their sex lives, such as the late Christopher Hitchens for example.

1ZRed

gcgirl wrote: »

The lack of sensitivity would prolong the actual act of intercourse so you last 5 mins as oppose to 2 mins

Yeah but less sensitivity would decrease the pleasure.

Plus with no foreskin you'd need lube to masturbate. Fuck that all the time!

Wibbs

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious but is it only a religous thing? Its been very common in our family on my fathers side. Were definatly not Jewish but my fathers side is a little more exotic than my mother's pure celt side.

Fashion mostly S. It was rare in "the west" outside of religious groups before the late 19th century. At that point it became fashionable as pseudo medically indicated to stop "degeneration of the organs etc" due to **** basically. Kellog(he of the cornflakes) was hellbent on it as were other quacks at the time and it went mainstream, especially in the US where in turn it became a given. Well at the time there was often a minimal barrier between quackery and medicine(BTW it's feck all to do with "jewish doctors" as is sometimes suggested).

Many cultures have sought to outlaw it, going back as far as the Greeks and Romans, hence alone among the Abrahamic faiths it's not a requirement for Christians. Indeed the "all off" requirement in Judaism only really came about when Jewish men would hide their cultural affiliation in order to play Greek games. They used to leave enough of the foreskin so that they could "pass" as Greek(more a nip than a removal). This wasn't good enough for the crosseyed religious nut Rabbi's so they increased the severity of it so they wouldn't contaminate themselves. Muslims being another Judaism version 2.0 kept the practice. Ancient Egyptians sometimes did it, as did Sumerians, basically a middle eastern thing even before Jews copied/continued the practice. It's basically a bronze age blood sacrifice rite by proxy.

Doing if for anything but actual medical reasons is primitive nonsense IMHO. We've enough of that magical thinking guff as it is without continuing more. There are a number of Jewish groups that have questioned the practice and fair play.

ihsb

I voted for it. But really because there is no middle option. If you do it you do it, if you don't you don't. I am not sure how I feel about doing it to babies for anything other then medical reasons but I can see the pros and cons of both.

Gael23

1ZRed wrote: »

Yeah but less sensitivity would decrease the pleasure.

Plus with no foreskin you'd need lube to masturbate. Fuck that all the time!

Thats a pretty minor issue for me. Plus it can be done without lube but is alot less pleasure and takes longer

Wibbs

ihsb wrote: »

I am not sure how I feel about doing it to babies for anything other then medical reasons but I can see the pros and cons of both.

As a matter of genuine interest ihsb what pros do you see if there are no medical reasons?

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

Fashion mostly S. It was rare in "the west" outside of religious groups before the late 19th century. At that point it became fashionable as pseudo medically indicated to stop "degeneration of the organs etc" due to **** basically. Kellog(he of the cornflakes) was hellbent on it as were other quacks at the time and it went mainstream, especially in the US where in turn it became a given. Well at the time there was often a minimal barrier between quackery and medicine(BTW it's feck all to do with "jewish doctors" as is sometimes suggested).

Many cultures have sought to outlaw it, going back as far as the Greeks and Romans, hence alone among the Abrahamic faiths it's not a requirement for Christians. Indeed the "all off" requirement in Judaism only really came about when Jewish men would hide their cultural affiliation in order to play Greek games. They used to leave enough of the foreskin so that they could "pass" as Greek(more a nip than a removal). This wasn't good enough for the crosseyed religious nut Rabbi's so they increased the severity of it so they wouldn't contaminate themselves. Muslims being another Judaism version 2.0 kept the practice. Ancient Egyptians sometimes did it, as did Sumerians, basically a middle eastern thing even before Jews copied/continued the practice. It's basically a bronze age blood sacrifice rite by proxy.

Doing if for anything but actual medical reasons is primitive nonsense IMHO. We've enough of that magical thinking guff as it is without continuing more. There are a number of Jewish groups that have questioned the practice and fair play.

Thanks Wibbs!

paddyandy

A lot of people don't believe in it because they don't understand it ......just about sums up a lot of Ideas good or bad .The sooner they reduce the number of people with polling cards the better for everybody .

ihsb

Wibbs wrote: »

As a matter of genuine interest ihsb what pros do you see if there are no medical reasons?

Only going from personal experience here. My ex was circumcised. He loved it. Our sex life was no different to with anybody else, taking into consideration different people obviously. He didn't feel like there was any desensitisation. He liked that it felt and looked cleaner.

Obviously I haven't researched intently or anything but this is just my experience of it.

opinion guy

ihsb wrote: »

Only going from personal experience here. My ex was circumcised. He loved it. Our sex life was no different to with anybody else, taking into consideration different people obviously. He didn't feel like there was any desensitisation. He liked that it felt and looked cleaner.

Obviously I haven't researched intently or anything but this is just my experience of it.

What age was he circumcised ?
If it was as a child - how would he know if there was desensitisation or not ? Felt and looked cleaner in comparison to what ? How would he know ?

Pedant

My name is URL wrote: »

That's all well and good.. but let an 18 yo decide whether or not it would improve their sex lives.

Why in the name of jaysus would a parent even be thinking about the future sex lives of their infant child? It's quite a messed up thought process imo.

Why are you twisting what I said? The practice of circumcision isn't just performed in early childhood, many adult get it done as well. I was referring to the general practice of circumcision and not just the reasons why it's performed on infants. FFS. It was asked whether circumcision was just a religious practice, clearly it isn't. Obviously, when parents circumcise their infant children they don't have their future sex life in mind, rather religious and/or medical reasons.

ihsb

opinion guy wrote: »

What age was he circumcised ?
If it was as a child - how would he know if there was desensitisation or not ? Felt and looked cleaner in comparison to what ? How would he know ?

Teenager. I don't know about his previous experience. My point is he didn't feel like he was missing out and he liked the way it looked. He was happy and have spoken to other men before about it and they have been happy about it too. So each to their own I guess.

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

I've heard some atheists say that circumcision will ruin their sex lives, such as the late Christopher Hitchens for example.

This is true, and...

1ZRed

ryanf1 wrote: »

Thats a pretty minor issue for me. Plus it can be done without lube but is alot less pleasure and takes longer

Well it's your dick and you can do what ever you like with it!:) Personally I'm not for or against it but I still think it should be a choice when you're older most things this severe should be.

And everything would be all great but I hate that some people think its cleaner and looks nicer to justify it. It's going to be retracted when hard for most guys anyway and those that it's not, it's not a big deal either.


I like being uncut but and if I want to, I have the option of getting circumcised. Cut guys who are unhappy about their situation can't have it reversed to the same effect so I think it should be an option when you're old enough or for medical reasons. Options aren't a bad thing!:)

philologos

Pedant wrote: »

This is true, and...

How is that true? How will circumcision ruin peoples sex lives?

To me that sounds as ridiculous as the notion that circumcision will improve it. Rather interested in seeing if you have anything to back it up.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

Good call. If many are all too happy to laugh at/disapprove at religion and the religious and most see us moving beyond most of that guff, I don't see why removing the right of religious parents to mutilate their kids is such a big issue. Any form of female genital mutilation(even the least severe) is banned in most civilised nations, so don't see why this one should remain OK because of some bronze age daftness that continues to this day.

Complete agree.

This excuse of "Freedom to practise religion is a cherished legal principle" is a load of cobblers in this case.

If that was the case and I was in a religion where a good book espouses that:
I must cut the head off a chicken, swing its body around a market square every third Saturday and make sure all is covered in its blood - I should be allowed to do so!

..But no, that would be daft!

...I'll tell you what instead, lets cut the skin off a four years old dick for no reason than a supposed man who is now invisible but still here (apparently) many, many centuries ago might have said that its the right thing to do!

Yea, that makes sense!




I take it back - its absolute more stupidity!

Religion or no religion - that don't give anyone any excuse for anything that involves slicing skin off a four year old near balls!

...And thats putting it plainly!

Gbear

philologos wrote: »

I've heard some atheists people who incidentally don't believe in a deity, because that is wholly relevant to this discussion, say that circumcision will ruin their sex lives.

:rolleyes:


There are valid medical reasons to perform this with a view towards preventing AIDS and so forth, but that only applies in places like Africa.

In western countries, excluding valid medical reasons like tight foreskin, it shouldn't just be frowned upon, it should be illegal unless the person gives their own consent and that precludes it being performed on minors.

There are some really ****ed up notions involved with this on the religious/cultural side of things including one hasidic jewish tradition which involves the Rabbi taking the baby's penis in his mouth and sucking the blood off.
What the absolute **** is wrong with these people?:mad:

Pedant

philologos wrote: »

How is that true? How will circumcision ruin peoples sex lives?

To me that sounds as ridiculous as the notion that circumcision will improve it. Rather interested in seeing if you have anything to back it up.

It's very simple really. The foreskin is there to maintain the sensitivity of the glans penis (though that's not its only function). When the foreskin is removed, the glans are exposed and, over time, the nerve endings get damaged after being constantly rubbed off clothing, etc... Thus there is a loss in sensitivity. The same thing happens if you masturbate too much, the sensitivity in the glans is reduced.

Simply put, reduced sensitivity of the glans will, in the long run, reduce sexual pleasure. Off course, there are some people who have very sensitive glans and would prefer to get a circumcision done during adulthood so they might be about to last 10 minute instead of 20 seconds.

Biggins

We don't allow in most countries the right to kill ourselves - but somehow we allow people, often strangers to come and cut bits of our dick off at a tender age, and without even our permission!

And before anyone says, "O' well the boys want it" - we don't allow teens to sign up to legal contracts in this country and many others till they are supposedly mature enough at 18 (or approx), to decide for themselves with a bit more (hopefully) informed maturity of future consequences - but hey, lets at they being four, tell the big man with the snips thats is ok to cut bits off!

Anyone see the double standards?

O' well - its religion... so thats a good excuse! :rolleyes:

Neeson

Gbear wrote: »

There are some really ****ed up notions involved with this on the religious/cultural side of things including one hasidic jewish tradition which involves the Rabbi taking the baby's penis in his mouth and sucking the blood off.
What the absolute **** is wrong with these people?:mad:

Really?

Biggins

Neeson wrote: »

Really?

Yes. true. There was a recent thread with an accompanying video (now removed - the video, not the thread) to show the act.

Terrible.

Neeson

Biggins wrote: »

Yes. true. There was a recent thread with an accompanying video (now removed - the video, not the thread) to show the act.

Terrible.

Was it in YouTube? Do I have to google rabbi sucking child's penis?!

Biggins

Neeson wrote: »

Was it in YouTube? Do I have to google rabbi sucking child's penis?!

I'll leave it to your own imagination and work.
A posted link here might not be wished by the mods.

Gbear

Neeson wrote: »

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah#Reasons_for_circumcision

Less commonly practiced, and more controversial, is metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[10][11] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound, on the baby's penis. The traditional reason for this procedure is to minimize the potential for postoperative complications,[12][13] although the practice has been shown to pose a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant.

Fair enough, it's not a hugely popular tradition but if your religion allows you to lop bits of babies' dicks off, a little bit of baby dick-sucking thrown into the bargain should hardly be seen as controversial.

philologos

I think this map could be useful in discussing it. It shows that yes, there is a high level of circumcision in countries which are highly Islamic, and of course Israel which is majority Jewish, but there are also rates between 20% and 80% in Australia, Canada, and the USA, and higher rates again in South Korea.

Is it really all negative? It's an interesting discussion, but there must be a reason why this has taken higher levels in the US, Canada, Australia and South Korea despite none of these countries holding largely to Jewish or Islamic beliefs?

Biggins

philologos wrote: »

...there must be a reason why this has taken higher levels in the US, Canada, Australia and South Korea despite none of these countries holding largely to Jewish or Islamic beliefs?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080526032334AAl2t4M :pac:

gcgirl

ihsb wrote: »

opinion guy wrote: »

What age was he circumcised ?
If it was as a child - how would he know if there was desensitisation or not ? Felt and looked cleaner in comparison to what ? How would he know ?

Teenager. I don't know about his previous experience. My point is he didn't feel like he was missing out and he liked the way it looked. He was happy and have spoken to other men before about it and they have been happy about it too. So each to their own I guess.

Yeh but there's up to a certain point when the boy-becoming a man when they can't pull the foreskin back after that they can like when they start tugging themselves but their must of been a reason why he got it removed, tight foreskin thingy which begins with a p

Wibbs

ihsb wrote: »

he liked the way it looked.

So an aesthetic/fashion thing was a part of it? That seems to be a strong part of the meme in certain cultures. It looks better/cleaner. Funny enough cultures that practice FGM say the same thing.

Gbear wrote: »

There are valid medical reasons to perform this with a view towards preventing AIDS and so forth, but that only applies in places like Africa.

Actually the jury is out on even that. The methodology of many of such studies now taken as read are considered dubious.

Pedant wrote: »

Off course, there are some people who have very sensitive glans and would prefer to get a circumcision done during adulthood so they might be about to last 10 minute instead of 20 seconds.

Other researchers suggest that circumcised men may be more likely to suffer premature ejaculation because many of the nerve pathways that signal the build up towards ejaculation are lost.

philologos wrote: »

Is it really all negative? It's an interesting discussion, but there must be a reason why this has taken higher levels in the US, Canada, Australia and South Korea despite none of these countries holding largely to Jewish or Islamic beliefs?

Fashion basically P. Certainly in South Korea the meme can be followed quite well. The US and Canada ditto with the Victorian drive for it kicking off the meme. It was popular here in Ireland for a time. My grandparents and their rellies on my mothers side all snipped their sons. Indeed my grannie was pissed off at my mother for not continuing the practice. No real reason given, other than "that's how we do things, your father and your brothers were done". Utterly stupid reasoning really. Luckily my father's family didn't plug into that guff so I was left alone.

philologos

Wibbs: Bringing it up as a Victorian phenomenon, if that is true, why wasn't and isn't circumcision more common in Britain? You'd also need to show that it was more common in 19th century Britain. I'm skeptical of explaining it away like that.