Male circumcision

whupdedo

Keno wrote: »

Sheesh. All I did was provide the definition of the word you described did not happen to you.

Here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzb726TP-OM

Is that me and you hugging , that makes me happy

whupdedo

Ella Billions Monochrome wrote: »

People are just pointing out that there is harm and that 'they won't remember' is flawed logic.

Flawed logic is such a perfect little come back , but I still point out I don't condone it , I don't necessarily condemn any parent that does it to a child either though, but I have no doubt it will probably be eventually a redundant practise , done by a small religious minority outside of medical needs.

Very Bored

whupdedo wrote: »

Flawed logic is such a perfect little come back , but I still point out I don't condone it , I don't necessarily condemn any parent that does it to a child either though, but I have no doubt it will probably be eventually a redundant practise , done by a small religious minority outside of medical needs.

Depends on the part of the world you live in. Amongst American males it is very much the norm. Any porno website provides evidence of that. Also, given that I have yet to see a male porn performer who had ejaculation issues, and the fact that the male orgasm and ejaculation is essentially the same thing, it also provides evidence that being a circumcised male has no effect on being able to perform sexually.

kylith

Very Bored wrote: »

Depends on the part of the world you live in. Amongst American males it is very much the norm. Any porno website provides evidence of that. Also, given that I have yet to see a male porn performer who had ejaculation issues, and the fact that the male orgasm and ejaculation is essentially the same thing, it also provides evidence that being a circumcised male has no effect on being able to perform sexually.

Do you really think that a man with ejaculation or ED problems would have a career in porn? It's like saying that you don't see women with extruding breast implants or calcification due to implants in pornos means that there are no potential bad side effects to getting implants.

There most certainly are potential bad side effects in the long term to circumcision.

Very Bored

kylith wrote: »

Do you really think that a man with ejaculation or ED problems would have a career in porn? It's like saying that you don't see women with extruding breast implants or calcification due to implants in pornos means that there are no potential bad side effects to getting implants.

There most certainly are potential bad side effects in the long term to circumcision.

The fact that the vast majority of male porn performers are circumcised and very few are not could point to it actually serving to make ejaculation more effective and more controlled. The ratio of circumcised to non-circumcised in the western porn industry is certainly higher than in it is in the normal population.

As an aside, I'd be willing to put up with a couple of weeks of pain if I knew I could have a good time with Maria Ozawa afterwards lol.

kylith

Very Bored wrote: »

The fact that the vast majority of male porn performers are circumcised and very few are not could point to it actually serving to make ejaculation more effective and more controlled. The ratio of circumcised to non-circumcised in the western porn industry is certainly higher than in it is in the normal population.

As an aside, I'd be willing to put up with a couple of weeks of pain if I knew I could have a good time with Maria Ozawa afterwards lol.

Of course the majority of men in porn are circumcised: the majority of porn is American and the vast majority of American men are circumcised. If you watch porn made in Europe then men aren't circumcised.

If she's a porn star I'm sure that she'd have sex with you for the right price, regardless of whether your penis is circumcised or not.

Depraved

Imagine if all babies had their appendix removed shortly after birth purely for religious reasons for to prevent possible future medical issues.

Or the same for ear lobes, or the little toes on each foot. They're not needed, but we'd never allow it. But somehow doing the same for a part of a boys genitals is ok though?

jackofalltrades

Very Bored wrote: »

With males, circumcision just removes a sheath of fairly redundant skin and it has no effect on the future life, sexually or otherwise, of the male.

It's not redundant skin. It actually serves several purposes.
It protects the glans from friction and stops it from drying out.
This ensures that it remains highly sensitive.
The foreskins contains significant amounts of nerve cells.
And it has a sexual function in the the penis rocks back and forth on it during sex.
This reduces vaginal friction and makes sex more pleasurable for women.

Subsequently, it is abundantly clear that male and female circumcision are not the same, really they are not even similar.

As has already been said on this thread, a circumcision operation would be medically very similar to Type 1(a) FGM.

kylith

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's not redundant skin. It actually serves several purposes.
It protects the glans from friction and stops it from drying out.
This ensures that it remains highly sensitive.
The foreskins contains significant amounts of nerve cells.
And it has a sexual function in the the penis rocks back and forth on it during sex.
This reduces vaginal friction and makes sex more pleasurable for women.

Uncircumcised men also don't need to use lubrication when masturbating (for ages I wondered why American men in movies used lotion). During sex it also keeps the, for want of a better word, juices inside the fun zone whereas a circumcised penis acts as a scoop and everything dries out quicker.

Very Bored

kylith wrote: »

Of course the majority of men in porn are circumcised: the majority of porn is American and the vast majority of American men are circumcised. If you watch porn made in Europe then men aren't circumcised.

If she's a porn star I'm sure that she'd have sex with you for the right price, regardless of whether your penis is circumcised or not.

I'm happily married, it was meant as tongue-in-cheek humour.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's not redundant skin. It actually serves several purposes.
It protects the glans from friction and stops it from drying out.
This ensures that it remains highly sensitive.
The foreskins contains significant amounts of nerve cells.
And it has a sexual function in the the penis rocks back and forth on it during sex.
This reduces vaginal friction and makes sex more pleasurable for women.


As has already been said on this thread, a circumcision operation would be medically very similar to Type 1(a) FGM.

Why are you supposed to pull it back when you put on a condom if its so important during sex then?

jackofalltrades

Very Bored wrote: »

Why are you supposed to pull it back when you put on a condom if its so important during sex then?

If you don't retract the foreskin whilst putting on a condom the foreskin doesn't move and you end up getting very little enjoyment from sex, in my experience.

Very Bored

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If you don't retract the foreskin whilst putting on a condom the foreskin doesn't move and you end up getting very little enjoyment from sex, in my experience.

So there are advantages to not having it then...

Kylo Ren

Very Bored wrote: »

So there are advantages to not having it then...

Yes. It saves you the 5 seconds it would have taken you to do it yourself.

Does anyone know where I can find a doctor to remove my fingers as I hate wasting time putting the gloves on when it gets cold.

smurgen

Me langer would look tiny without Mr Anteater I'd say.

TheLastMohican

I think I could offer mine up - for medical advancement -if Kim Kardashian was holding it for the mohel ........ and he drops dead before the incision

Galwayguy35

Very Bored wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't have it done to any son of mine save for medical reasons, but I am with Whupdedoo on this. I don't believe it is mutilation and to equate male circumcision with female circumcision doesn't make sense. With males, circumcision just removes a sheath of fairly redundant skin and it has no effect on the future life, sexually or otherwise, of the male. With females it removes an extremely necessary part of the female anatomy. Once circumcision is performed on a female you consign her to a life where she can, at best, get no satisfaction from sex. There is also a strong possibility of making sex painful and unpleasant, though if no enjoyment can ever be gotten from sex I would already question how it can be anything other than unpleasant anyway. Furthermore, the damage is frequently not only physical. Subsequently, it is abundantly clear that male and female circumcision are not the same, really they are not even similar.

Really?

And who told you that?

The foreskin has a function, it's to keep the glans which has a lot of sensitive nerve endings moist and protected.

Gael23

Should only be done of theres a medical reason for it in my view.

Very Bored

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Really?

And who told you that?

The foreskin has a function, it's to keep the glans which has a lot of sensitive nerve endings moist and protected.

Can a male enjoy sex if he doesn't have a foreskin? Yes.

Can a female enjoy sex if she doesn't have a clitoris? No.

Different.

evolving_doors

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Lack of understanding of ancient medicine I see. Who were the first ones to nose jobs ? contrary to belief ancient medicine was quite good. You may be thinking of Terrible western medicine.

everything was great back then, back in the old days. Goddam modern western medicine and their pesky life saving treatments.

Very Bored

Cleaning agent wrote: »

Women can enjoy sex without a clitoris, well at least the bit that is cut off, the most powerful orgasm a woman can have is penetrative, the "deep spot" or anterior fornix induces intense orgasms when stimulated.

Ah the mythical G-spot which even scientists debate its existence.

Wibbs

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Really?

And who told you that?

The foreskin has a function, it's to keep the glans which has a lot of sensitive nerve endings moist and protected.

Aye it's far more than "redundant" and that widespread ignorance is well, widespread. It has a host of functions and contains nearly as many nerve endings as the glans. It also contains cells not found anywhere else in the body. The action of a functioning foreskin in sex keeps things lubricated for both and is a large part of the building sequence to orgasm.

Very Bored wrote:

Can a male enjoy sex if he doesn't have a foreskin? Yes.

Can a female enjoy sex if she doesn't have a clitoris? No.

Different.

OK then, would you be OK with female circumcision where only the clitoral hood was removed(which is a type of the practice). I doubt it, but there exists a cultural blindspot with male bodily integrity on this score.

Very Bored

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye it's far more than "redundant" and that widespread ignorance is well, widespread. It has a host of functions and contains nearly as many nerve endings as the glans. It also contains cells not found anywhere else in the body. The action of a functioning foreskin in sex keeps things lubricated for both and is a large part of the building sequence to orgasm.

OK then, would you be OK with female circumcision where only the clitoral hood was removed(which is a type of the practice). I doubt it, but there exists a cultural blindspot with male bodily integrity on this score.

I would argue that the clitoral hood is far more useful than the foreskin. The clitoris is insanely sensitive, or so I have been told, not being the proprietor of one myself (for biological rather than medical reasons lol). I have never felt my glans become over-sensitive during sex, but I have been told a number of times that the clitoris had. It warrants protection.

A litmus test for whether foreskin-removal is damaging or not is that it is extremely common in the extremely litigious USA. If it were so damaging, surgeons there would be loathe to do it save somebody sues in the future. Goodness me, there are cases of people suing over there because they smoked their whole lives and got cancer. Whether they won or not is irrelevant, the threat of being brought to court is far more prevalent in America than it is in Europe.

Very Bored

Cleaning agent wrote: »

I wadn't referring to the gym spot, but now that you mention it I've stimulated the game spot with my fingers on many women who have orgasmed from it as a result. So there is a spot a couple inches in on the front side that induces orgasms. The "deep spot"orgasm is even stronger than the "g spot" orgasm. I find women's sexuality fascinating.

With respect, most men have made women cum by using their fingers. In fact, most women have done it to themselves. The idea of "spots" is as widely debated as the issue of squirting. Many confirm the existence of both, many negate it.

Wibbs

Very Bored wrote: »

I would argue that the clitoral hood is far more useful than the foreskin. The clitoris is insanely sensitive, or so I have been told, not being the proprietor of one myself (for biological rather than medical reasons lol). I have never felt my glans become over-sensitive during sex, but I have been told a number of times that the clitoris had. It warrants protection.

Walk around with your foreskin retracted for a day and see how sensitive it is. Oh and mine has certainly become over sensitive during sex and I had to dial things back. Never mind that the foreskin contains far more tissue, blood vessels and nerves than the clitoral hood. It is most certainly not a useless flap of skin. The clitoris is far more protected a structure than the glans anyway, even minus a clitoral hood.

Regardless, you didn't answer the question. Would you be OK with the routine removal of the analogous tissue in young girls?

A litmus test for whether foreskin-removal is damaging or not is that it is extremely common in the extremely litigious USA. If it were so damaging, surgeons there would be loathe to do it save somebody sues in the future. Goodness me, there are cases of people suing over there because they smoked their whole lives and got cancer. Whether they won or not is irrelevant, the threat of being brought to court is far more prevalent in America than it is in Europe.

Not sure if serious… In any event many lawsuits have been brought and won too with some large payouts in the US of A. It seems the benefit to individual doctors outweighs the risks in that culture.

TBH I think you've decided a position and no amount of contrary data will convince you.

Very Bored

Wibbs wrote: »

Walk around with your foreskin retracted for a day and see how sensitive it is. Oh and mine has certainly become over sensitive during sex and I had to dial things back. Never mind that the foreskin contains far more tissue, blood vessels and nerves than the clitoral hood. It is most certainly not a useless flap of skin. The clitoris is far more protected a structure than the glans anyway, even minus a clitoral hood.

Regardless, you didn't answer the question. Would you be OK with the routine removal of the analogous tissue in young girls?

I thought it was clear enough from my response that I wouldn't be and why.

Not sure if serious… too with some large payouts in the US of A. It seems the benefit to individual doctors outweighs the risks in that culture.

TBH I think you've decided a position and no amount of contrary data will convince you.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I believe the same of those arguing against it. For as much data as there is that it does harm there is as much as says it doesn't. To be perfectly honest I don't really care, I have mine and so I don't know what it is like to be circumcised, just as if I had had it removed when I was a child I wouldn't now know what it is like to be uncircumcised. Its one of those areas that people have their own views, almost exclusively stemming from whether they have their hoods or not, and for once the "thinking with the pants" idea is probably the most accurate test of whether you are pro or against. Personally, I wouldn't have it done to any son of mine, but because I think it is unnecessary. I'm not circumcised, neither is my father, so it doesn't run in my family. If it did, maybe I'd feel differently, but the difference between me and the anti-brigade is that I am willing to consider that in different circumstances I would have a different opinion.

To equate it with mutilation is ridiculous though. I am fairly certain I wouldn't object now if my parents had circumcised me, I think I probably would had they cut my arm off or mutilated my face though. People have trotted out definitions which state things like mutiliation being any damaging/defacing of the body. If you are against circumcision on the basis that it "mutilates" the body, why don't you equally oppose ear-piercing?

My name is URL

Very Bored wrote: »

If you are against circumcision on the basis that it "mutilates" the body, why don't you equally oppose ear-piercing?

What makes you think that anyone opposed to the idea of needless acts of surgery like circumcision wouldn't also be opposed to piercing an infant's ears?

I'd consider the latter to be a form of abuse too, not as serious and permanent as the former though.

Should parents be allowed to have their infants tattooed in your opinion? Shur it's a pretty harmless practice at the end of the day, right?

Very Bored

My name is URL wrote: »

What makes you think that anyone opposed to the idea of needless acts of surgery like circumcision wouldn't also be opposed to piercing an infant's ears?

I'd consider the latter to be a form of abuse too, not as serious and permanent as the former though.

Should parents be allowed to have their infants tattooed in your opinion? Shur it's a pretty harmless practice at the end of the day, right?

You missed the point I'm afraid. Those who are anti-circumcision in this thread are anti circumcision full stop. I dare say all or the majority of them aren't against adults getting ears pierced or tattooed though.

Personally, I think circumcision should be reserved for medical and religious reasons as it is an otherwise useless practice. That doesn't mean that Jews and Muslims don't have the right to practise their religions in the way they see fit though. The west is massively ignorant in terms of other cultures, and always blinkardly believes that everything it does is A1, that I see no reason to jump on the backs of certain groups myself just because of an ignorance that exists in the general public.

kylith

Very Bored wrote: »

To equate it with mutilation is ridiculous though. I am fairly certain I wouldn't object now if my parents had circumcised me,

You don't know how you would feel if it had been done. As I said, an ex of mine was circumcised as a baby and he certainly objected to it. In fact he was very angry about it and believed it contributed to, if not caused, some sexual problems. You don't know how it would have impacted your sex life. As Wibbs suggested; tape your foreskin back for a day and see how it feels with the head of your penis rubbing against your clothes, then realise how much calloused skin would have to build up and how much the nerves would have to be desensitised if your penis was always like that, and have a think about how your sex life would be different.

Obviously if your penis was like that all your life you wouldn't be aware of how different your sex life would be different if you had never been cut. Just like people who are born deaf don't miss the sounds they'll never hear.

Very Bored wrote: »

People have trotted out definitions which state things like mutiliation being any damaging/defacing of the body. If you are against circumcision on the basis that it "mutilates" the body, why don't you equally oppose ear-piercing?

Because 1) generally ear piercing is a personal choice, is done with the consent of the piercee who is made aware of the fact that it will hurt, and the wound is miniscule compared to the one caused by circumcision. Comparing ear piercing to circumcision is like comparing stubbing your toe to shattering your tibia. I am against people piercing babies ears. 2) 'reversing' an ear piercing is as simple as removing the earring. While a circumcision can be cosmetically reversed it takes a hell of a lot of time and the specialised cells that were removed can never be regrown.

endacl

Very Bored wrote: »

You missed the point I'm afraid. Those who are anti-circumcision in this thread are anti circumcision full stop. I dare say all or the majority of them aren't against adults getting ears pierced or tattooed though.

Personally, I think circumcision should be reserved for medical and religious reasons as it is an otherwise useless practice. That doesn't mean that Jews and Muslims don't have the right to practise their religions in the way they see fit though. The west is massively ignorant in terms of other cultures, and always blinkardly believes that everything it does is A1, that I see no reason to jump on the backs of certain groups myself just because of an ignorance that exists in the general public.

Superstition is not, and can never be, a valid reason to inflict an entirely unnecessary wound on an infant.

Nobody 'wants' circumcision carried out, except for religious reasons. I'm sure any parent whose child needed it carried out for medical reasons would prefer it wasn't necessary. In the same way any parent would prefer any medical procedure on their child was not necessary.

My name is URL

Very Bored wrote: »

You missed the point I'm afraid. Those who are anti-circumcision in this thread are anti circumcision full stop. I dare say all or the majority of them aren't against adults getting ears pierced or tattooed though.

Personally, I think circumcision should be reserved for medical and religious reasons as it is an otherwise useless practice. That doesn't mean that Jews and Muslims don't have the right to practise their religions in the way they see fit though. The west is massively ignorant in terms of other cultures, and always blinkardly believes that everything it does is A1, that I see no reason to jump on the backs of certain groups myself just because of an ignorance that exists in the general public.

With all due respect, I don't think it's me that's missing the point.

Why is religion a legitimate reason to perform unnecessary surgery on a toddler? And why the hell should people accept that it is? I don't care if making it illegal upsets a few fundies.

An individual's right to bodily integrity should far outweigh the religious beliefs of another, or their right to subject someone else to needless and irreversible surgeries!

There's ignorance in the general public on this issue alright, but it ain't among those who see a problem with it.