PDA

View Full Version : Is Circumsision Okay?


Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 03:27 PM
Title says it all, do you think it is okay to circumcise babies when there is no medical necessity.

My opinion: Hell no! Chopping it off for cosmetic, religious or traditional reasons is horrific in my opinion, if the guy wants to have it done to himself when he is an adult then he has every right but in my opinion, only an adult can decide to have permanent cosmetic surgery done to them. I say cosmetic but it actually alters the penis significantly so to have that forced upon you would be horrific.

I think it is much worse than tattooing a baby (something I am obviously also against) but yet I assume those pro circumcision would be against the tattooing.

I am however of course open minded and would love to read why you are for it, the reason I made this post is because I don't get how male circumcision is acceptable but female circumcision is rightly highly illegal and taboo.

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 03:40 PM
How so does circumcision greatly affect the penis in a way you would rather classify as mutilation rather than cosmetic? And what age do you propose is proper for children to choose?

Female circumcision basically the elimination of all sexual pleasures for women. It's been used as a way to suppress women's sexual choices for centuries. Add to that, FGM results in a much larger risk to urinary infections, while male circumcision has been stated to actually reduce it.

DriveAlive
July 13th, 2017, 03:46 PM
I am circumcised. A lot of women prefer a circumcised penis. I think it looks a lot better and is certainly easier to clean.

Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 03:47 PM
How so does circumcision greatly affect the penis in a way you would rather classify as mutilation rather than cosmetic?
It greatly reduces sensitivity and without being too crude I know from a drunk conversation with my one circumcised friend that it makes male masturbation much more difficult which I am included to believe as it is why masturbation became popular in Victorian England as masturbation was seen as a terrible thing that caused blindness and hairy hands etc etc.

Even if you would consider it a cosmetic surgery instead of a mutilation which is debatable but is a perfectly defensible position, I don't think that a irreversible cosmetic surgery on baby is okay either, look back at my tattoo example.
And what age do you propose is proper for children to choose?
At whatever age you have to be in the country to have permanent surgeries that aren't medically necessary, in England that is 18, no idea what it is in the US, I assume either 18 or 21?

Jinglebottom
July 13th, 2017, 03:48 PM
Circumcision should only be done if the individual can give consent (so people can stop putting defenseless babies through this barbarity the way my parents did to me). I sure am glad I don't remember it, or else I think I would have been traumatized for a long, long time.

We all know the real reason why it's done, it's to dull sexual pleasure and keep boys from masturbating and enjoying themselves. All the "hygiene" and "cleanliness" excuses are just here to distract us from the fact that the foreskin plays a very important role in NORMAL male sexuality. It's not just a "flap of skin" as people like to say it is. And the worst thing is that it's permanent and irreversible, so if you're dissatisfied, sorry, there's no going back.

Hopefully one day, neonatal circumcision will be a thing of the past.

/end rant

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 04:17 PM
It greatly reduces sensitivity and without being too crude I know from a drunk conversation with my one circumcised friend that it makes male masturbation much more difficult which I am included to believe as it is why masturbation became popular in Victorian England as masturbation was seen as a terrible thing that caused blindness and hairy hands etc etc.I don't see any scientific agreement that circumscion reduces sexual pleasure nor results in more difficult male masturbation. In reality, there is far more consensus that circumcision is actually beneficial, resulting in decreased risks of genital infections and cancers. We can discuss the moral implications of adolescent cosmetic surgery, sure, but I'll need more than drunken testimony from your friend if you want to argue health risks.
At whatever age you have to be in the country to have permanent surgeries that aren't medically necessary, in England that is 18, no idea what it is in the US, I assume either 18 or 21? I assume you feel the same about gender-change surgeries as well?

mattsmith48
July 13th, 2017, 04:19 PM
I'm against it for non-medical reasons until 18 years old, if you are old enough to drink, gamble, join the army and vote you are old enough to take that decision. When it comes to something as irreversible and as impactful the decision should come only to the person who is getting circumcised.

It greatly reduces sensitivity and without being too crude I know from a drunk conversation with my one circumcised friend that it makes male masturbation much more difficult which I am included to believe as it is why masturbation became popular in Victorian England as masturbation was seen as a terrible thing that caused blindness and hairy hands etc etc.

Actually that is the reason, we started circumcising boys to make it harder for them to masturbate. Some people say it makes it more difficult others say no, i guess it depends on how it was done.

I am circumcised. A lot of women prefer a circumcised penis. I think it looks a lot better and is certainly easier to clean.

It depends on the woman.

Dmaxd123
July 13th, 2017, 04:32 PM
i'm circumcised and never have i had issues masturbating lol

Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 05:07 PM
I don't see any scientific agreement that circumscion reduces sexual pleasure nor results in more difficult male masturbation.
Unfortunately scientific studies are split on the issue, I have found several articles saying circumcision decreases sensitivity and others saying there is little to no effect. Even if there is no effect on sensitivity which I am happy to assume is true for the sake of this debate due to the lack of evidence either way, this on its own does not justify it.
In reality, there is far more consensus that circumcision is actually beneficial, resulting in decreased risks of genital infections and cancers.
This is true although I do believe most of them are a hygiene issue, you are right that there is a slightly lower risk of certain infections and cancers.

But this does not change my argument that this should be an adults right to choose, it should not be chosen for him.

Have you read jinglebottom's post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3544878&postcount=5)?? There are many people that was circumcised at birth and wish they hadn't been. If I was, I would be fuming that my parents dared to cut off part of my body for no reason, without my consent.

I assume you feel the same about gender-change surgeries as well?
This depends on a lot buddy as I am sure you can understand, if the child suffers with gender dysphoria then it may be necessary for the person to get it as a medical treatment. The same way someone who has a foreskin complication or infection may need to have the foreskin removed before 18.
I am circumcised. A lot of women prefer a circumcised penis. I think it looks a lot better and is certainly easier to clean.
Many women may prefer it but that is a cosmetic issue and in my opinion, does not justify giving babies the snip.

Let me be clear, I am not against circumcision, in the same way I am not against boob jobs, I just want those having the surgery to be consenting adults.

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 05:25 PM
This depends on a lot buddy as I am sure you can understand, if the child suffers with gender dysphoria then it may be necessary for the person to get it as a medical treatment. The same way someone who has a foreskin complication or infection may need to have the foreskin removed before 18. How so? Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, you can't cure mental illnesses via anatomical surgeries, you simply hide it under a veil of normalcy. And if you are talking about the suicide rate, there is no conclusive data telling us that performing the surgery does anything to reduce that.

Meanwhile, foreskin complications and infections are anatomical problems, not mental, therefore you must deal with them via anatomical means. Simply put, it is a false comparison to say that amputation of an anatomical part due to infection is equivalent to amputation of an anatomical part due to mental illness.

Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 05:32 PM
How so? Gender dysphoria is a mental illness, you can't cure mental illnesses via anatomical surgeries, you simply hide it under a veil of normalcy. And if you are talking about the suicide rate, there is no conclusive data telling us that performing the surgery does anything to reduce that.

Meanwhile, foreskin complications and infections are anatomical problems, not mental, therefore you must deal with them via anatomical means. Simply put, it is a false comparison to say that amputation of an anatomical part due to infection is equivalent to amputation of an anatomical part due to mental illness.
Look I'm not a doctor buddy and if someone with 10 years of medical school and training says they need the surgery then I will agree they need the surgery. There is also the issue of not taking medical illnesses seriously but this is all off topic so I will move on.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think circumcision preformed on babies that cannot consent for no medical reason should be legal?

You also didn't answer my question.... did you read this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3544878&postcount=5) and if you did, what is your reaction to it?

SethfromMI
July 13th, 2017, 05:44 PM
I am circumcised. A lot of women prefer a circumcised penis. I think it looks a lot better and is certainly easier to clean.

not only that but there is a reason most get it done as a baby if they're going to get it done. it would be incredibly painful to have it done as an adult.

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 06:28 PM
Look I'm not a doctor buddy and if someone with 10 years of medical school and training says they need the surgery then I will agree they need the surgery. There is also the issue of not taking medical illnesses seriously but this is all off topic so I will move on.
There are doctors with 10 years of schooling and medical training who say that the surgery is not needed to treat gender dysphoria. There are doctors with 10 years of schooling and medical training who say circumcision should be required of all boys. Where then is your blind trust of doctors' opinions now?

Let me ask you this: Why do you think circumcision preformed on babies that cannot consent for no medical reason should be legal?
Why do you think murdering human fetuses for no medical reason should be legal? I don't want to get into the abortion debate, so no need to answer, but just think on that. Onto your question, I think circumcision's should be legal because it offers health benefits, does not negatively affect the person's life, it does not affect bodily functions, and thus falls under appropriate parental powers.

You also didn't answer my question.... did you read this post (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3544878&postcount=5) and if you did, what is your reaction to it? No offense to Jinglebottom, but what exactly is he basing this opinion on. You can't say that your circumcision resulted in you having less sexual pleasure if you been circumcised since infancy. There is no baseline comparison, under basic laws of science and logic you can't claim any evidence against circumcision using this testimony.

Secondly, Jinglebottom is in the minority here. Literally every other cut person here claims they haven't dealt with such problems, and they support the right to circumcise. Why should I trust his opinion over the other's here.

Flapjack
July 13th, 2017, 06:41 PM
I think circumcision's should be legal because it offers health benefits, does not negatively affect the person's life, it does not affect bodily functions, and thus falls under appropriate parental powers.
I am all for improving the health of babies buddy but there is the reduction is risk of certain infections in diseases is very little and them diseases are very unlikely to effect a child before 18.

Whether or not it would negatively effect a person's life is an opinion, a fine opinion to have when making changes to your own body, but not to babies. I personally like not being circumcised despite the marginal health risk that is pretty much eliminated with basic hygiene because it would have a negative effect on my life. That is my personal opinion and so I choose not to go and have the operation. If I wanted the snip I would go have it done. As an adult I have that choice, I think everyone should have the choice.

it does not affect bodily functions, and thus falls under appropriate parental powers.

Tattooing a dragon down your babies back does not effect bodily functions but I am sure you disagree with that? I do not think appropriate parental powers should allow them to permanently alter the babies body unless it was medically necessary.


No offense to Jinglebottom, but what exactly is he basing this opinion on. You can't say that your circumcision resulted in you having less sexual pleasure if you been circumcised since infancy. There is no baseline comparison, under basic laws of science and logic you can't claim any evidence against circumcision using this testimony.

Secondly, Jinglebottom is in the minority here. Literally every other cut person here claims they haven't dealt with such problems, and they support the right to circumcise. Why should I trust his opinion over the other's here.
Jinglebottom's post was his opinion, and he regrets it, proving my point. He is the minority here and I do believe that most don't suffer problems but if they didn't do it to him as a child he could choose as an adult not to get it done.

He is not the only one that regrets it. (http://www.circumstitions.com/regret.html)

Why on earth do you think parents should be able to cut of parts of their babies body because most boys grow up not to regret it??

If you like circumcision that is perfectly fine, just get it done as an adult.

You also ignore the health risks of the operation itself:

'Apart from the initial swelling, bleeding and infection are the two most common problems associated with circumcision. There's between a 1 in 10 and a 1 in 50 chance that you'll experience bleeding or infection.
Other possible complications of circumcision can include:


permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex
tenderness around the scar
the need to remove stitches that haven't dissolved
occasionally, another operation is needed to remove some more skin from around the head of the penis'

Source (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx)

Jinglebottom
July 13th, 2017, 06:56 PM
No offense to Jinglebottom, but what exactly is he basing this opinion on. You can't say that your circumcision resulted in you having less sexual pleasure if you been circumcised since infancy. There is no baseline comparison, under basic laws of science and logic you can't claim any evidence against circumcision using this testimony.
No offense taken at all. :) Cutting off thousands of pleasurable nerves (found in your foreskin, ridged band, frenulum - all removed during circumcision, but the latter is sometimes kept) = less pleasure. The thing is that none of us know truly know what we're missing, so obviously I can't personally "testify" against circumcision, since being circumcised is all I've ever known. However, there are tons of stories out there about men who chose to get cut when they were adults, you may wanna check them out, since they hold the "evidence" of its pleasure-reducing effects.

Secondly, Jinglebottom is in the minority here. Literally every other cut person here claims they haven't dealt with such problems, and they support the right to circumcise. Why should I trust his opinion over the other's here.
If you're circumcised and happy about it - more power to you, I envy you. But some of us would've rather been left the way we were formed. Foreskins are here for a reason, but if you think they're some sort of birth defect, you have all the freedom to mess with your genitals when you're old enough. Not everyone is into that, though. There's no reason to force it on a little boy, he can make the decision for himself when he's older (and he can deal with the aftermath as well).

Just JT
July 13th, 2017, 06:57 PM
Personally, I see no point in circumsising babies these days. Think inhpget why it was done....but....

In today's world of better knowledge and education, is also better healthcare and hygiene. If guys practice proper personal hygiene with their junk, it won't be an issue. I've seen it both ways. Some are nasty, but comes down to personal hygiene stuff

But to indescriminatly decide for another male just after birth for whatever reasons, no, that's just wrong imo.

I was cut at birth, and I like guys who are uncut, but clean. And I'm jealous of something I can't have, but used to

But if medically necessary, that's different. Sometimes at a young age, health issues develope. And needs to be done

But I also felt like most can be avoided with an educated secure in themselves adult explaining/showing the child, if that's what's needed. Or cleaning for them when they can't.

Just my opinion

Babs
July 13th, 2017, 07:20 PM
my thoughts on circumcision are the same as ear piercing: wait until they can talk.

just because he has a foreskin doesn't mean he has to have a dirty dick. just raise your sons to clean their dicks.

Human
July 13th, 2017, 07:46 PM
No, unless there is an immediate medical need.

PlasmaHam
July 13th, 2017, 08:13 PM
Tattooing a dragon down your babies back does not effect bodily functions but I am sure you disagree with that? I do not think appropriate parental powers should allow them to permanently alter the babies body unless it was medically necessary. You conveniently ignored my 3rd point, regarding negative effects upon the child's life. A giant dragon tattoo is far more negatively impactful on a child's life than having a bit of foreskin cut off, I am sure you will agree with that, buddy.;)

Jinglebottom's post was his opinion, and he regrets it, proving my point. He is the minority here and I do believe that most don't suffer problems but if they didn't do it to him as a child he could choose as an adult not to get it done.

He is not the only one that regrets it. (http://www.circumstitions.com/regret.html)Point still stands. Just because a minority of people regretted it does not prove that it is somehow flawed. Here are some testimonies of people who regretted sex changes, (http://www.sexchangeregret.com/wwwsexchangeregretcom)there are probably hundreds more who have kept quiet about their regret as well. Using your logic, is this not proof that trans-surgery should be banned because a minority came to regret it?

Why on earth do you think parents should be able to cut of parts of their babies body because most boys grow up not to regret it??
I believe I already answered this question.

[LIST]
permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex
tenderness around the scar
the need to remove stitches that haven't dissolved
occasionally, another operation is needed to remove some more skin from around the head of the penis' There are risks with everything we do. And while I don't know the exact statistics, I do know that there is far more risks from adolescent sex-change operations than circumcision, yet you seem totally fine with that.

Jinglebottom, thanks for your respectable and reasonable response, there are far too few of those in ROTW anymore.

Periphery
July 13th, 2017, 10:31 PM
How many times has this thread been made? Is ROTW so dead we have to re make old threads now?

First of all, why aren't we talking about what's going on in Africa? We only seem to talk about male circumsision but I mean, we only care about the stuff going on in our direct enviroment right?

Next up, I am not against nor for male circumsision. The child should decide, and it should not be made illegal. It comes nowhere near genital mutilation (see Africa). I am 100% against it happening to females, which sadly is not being mentioned here. If you honestly think it's criminal and mutilation, you really don't know what those words mean.

Now, as Jinglebottom said, they don't know what they are missing out on, so it is that bad? Let's compare it to my grandma, she has no internet and never had it to begin with. She has known and lived her life without it, so why should she miss it? It's not because we may miss it and can't live without it that she can't. It's in essence the same thing actually, as the core of thid whole debate comes down to taking away something from someone, and those people living life without that certain thing, in this case foreskin.

What I hate most about this whole debate though, is that the people who shout mutilation and crime also say religions should hold on to their traiditions. I wonder, would you act the same way if a Muslim woman wasn't allowed to go outside without a veil? If they cut a camel's throat in the streets because of their traditions? Yet something as minor as foreskin is a disaster. How come only this tradition should be made illegal, and those others shouldn't?

I am not going to do into the pro's and cons of this whole debate since I'd rather remain neutral in this. I am against people complaining about it and people who keep bringing it up time and time again without realising how hypocritical their claims actually are.

Desynchronized
July 13th, 2017, 10:53 PM
Flapjack agree to your first part but you just can't compare male and female circumcision. Male One has nearly no bad effects and is done by professional surgeons who know what are they doing. And female circumcision is done by some old random dude living in jungles of africa and he/she does it with a fucking blade and then stiches it together and which is extremely painful, harmful and deadly in some cases for the victim(from what i know correct me if i'm wrong).

Dalcourt
July 13th, 2017, 11:46 PM
To decide what it does for me when it comes to masturbating or sexI can't say since I have only one penis...so yeah.
I'm sorta indifferent on that topic so I usually do not post. But today I'm bored enough.
So since it is not necessary in nostalgia cases and hasn't any real benefit I'm not sure why it is done.
People so heatedly discussed the vaccination thing. It's from more beneficial but against person freedom to force someone. But messing with someone's sexual organs is good?
So honestly I really don't get it.

Snowfox
July 14th, 2017, 01:52 AM
Well I am cut at birth cause its family tradition and because of health benefits. Someone mentioned how it reduces pleasure was it Jinglebottom ? I can still get pleasure when I wank while it may take little longer compared to uncut boy. This based on what I have heard so far. For uncut boy it takes about 10 min and for me about 20-30 min. Also uncuts dont seem to use lube.
But it also must have something to do with how person was circed like is it loose or dead-tight like mine.

Just JT
July 14th, 2017, 06:58 AM
Well I am cut at birth cause its family tradition and because of health benefits. Someone mentioned how it reduces pleasure was it Jinglebottom ? I can still get pleasure when I wank while it may take little longer compared to uncut boy. This based on what I have heard so far. For uncut boy it takes about 10 min and for me about 20-30 min. Also uncuts dont seem to use lube.
But it also must have something to do with how person was circed like is it loose or dead-tight like mine.


Health problems? Problems that can be corrected with proper personal hygiene and basic information and parental support.

Not saying it's not sometimes needed, but seems it's more just done to prevent what?

Bull
July 14th, 2017, 07:00 AM
Happily circumcised from birth and never had an issue with masturbation which I discovered at a very young age. A friend here at uni got circumcised at age 18 and the pain was terrible, and even more so when he boned up. He doesn't regret it but wishes it had been done at birth.

Babs
July 14th, 2017, 10:48 AM
i'm sure there are many medical procedures people wish they could have had done at birth rather than when they can remember. there is more to take into account besides which is the slightly more comfortable option. discomfort is the unfortunate reality of medical procedures.

Stronk Serb
July 15th, 2017, 06:12 AM
I call bullshit on the "easier to clean" part. Just peel lff the foreskin and apply a bit of soap and water. It's no rocket science. Also circumsision can be done under anesthesia, you know? An acquiantance of mine has to do it for medical reasons and he will be put under.

Snowfox
July 15th, 2017, 07:49 AM
Stronk Serb general anesthesia is always risky. So as long there is no reason to out person under docs prefer to use local anesthesia which is far far less risky. I am also quite sure that people mean pain after surgery while its healing.

Health problems? Problems that can be corrected with proper personal hygiene and basic information and parental support.

Not saying it's not sometimes needed, but seems it's more just done to prevent what?

STD:s and cancer as far as I am told. Also my mom didnt encourage about talking about those subjects. My bother told me what he knew and believed and even then he started by opening bible and reading it from there. After bible part he told what he knew about health etc.

Posts merged. Use the edit button next time. ~Mars

Just JT
July 15th, 2017, 08:17 AM
STD:s and cancer as far as I am told. Also my mom didnt encourage about talking about those subjects. My bother told me what he knew and believed and even then he started by opening bible and reading it from there. After bible part he told what he knew about health etc.

Think the STD's may be a myth that came outa a result of certian areas of people who didn't have the education and recourses available to them, and were all uncut (poor areas with no medical care and limited educational recsources). And I'd assume a link to cancer is also just a link based on similar facets. Take a looker the population samples of the people studied for those results and let me know

mattsmith48
July 15th, 2017, 04:41 PM
I call bullshit on the "easier to clean" part. Just peel lff the foreskin and apply a bit of soap and water. It's no rocket science. Also circumsision can be done under anesthesia, you know? An acquiantance of mine has to do it for medical reasons and he will be put under.

I think they are talking about the pain after the circumcision.

Stronk Serb
July 16th, 2017, 05:32 AM
I think they are talking about the pain after the circumcision.

Well, it's going to hurt even if you are a baby, or an adult. Also what if the child is circumsised for religious reasnons and then he abandons that religion.

Stronk Serb general anesthesia is always risky. So as long there is no reason to out person under docs prefer to use local anesthesia which is far far less risky. I am also quite sure that people mean pain after surgery while its healing.

I was under local anesthesia while they removed my ingrown toenail. It was a fun feeling. I was high and happy while I looked at blood spewing from my toe. Happy times. Well, like I said, it's going to hurt either way, but what if the person regrets being circumsized?

Snowfox
July 16th, 2017, 07:09 AM
Well, it's going to hurt even if you are a baby, or an adult. Also what if the child is circumsised for religious reasnons and then he abandons that religion.



I was under local anesthesia while they removed my ingrown toenail. It was a fun feeling. I was high and happy while I looked at blood spewing from my toe. Happy times. Well, like I said, it's going to hurt either way, but what if the person regrets being circumsized?

I cant see any real reason why person would be sorry for being circumcised since its not that big deal and has some health benefits. Circumcision doesn't bind you to any religion since one can be circed without being part of any religion.
And key point in doing it when baby is that you dont remember that pain and it heals way more faster than when done later.
For some odd reason when done at around time of birth circ leaves dark ring like scar. As far as I know when done later it doesnt make that ring type scar.

mattsmith48
July 16th, 2017, 08:59 AM
Well, it's going to hurt even if you are a baby, or an adult.

You got a point there; it's going to hurt if you are a baby or an adult, giving pain killers to a baby probably not the best move, so even if he doesn't remember it, he will suffer more than an adult or even a teenager.

Stronk Serb
July 16th, 2017, 05:23 PM
You got a point there; it's going to hurt if you are a baby or an adult, giving pain killers to a baby probably not the best move, so even if he doesn't remember it, he will suffer more than an adult or even a teenager.

I was given painkillers after I ha my ingrown toenail operated on. It was a nasty chunk. It was painful because a large part of the toenail was removed. It would hurt as if they plucked out the whole thing, but the doctor prescribed me painkillers. Also my acuaintance will get the painkillers after the procedure.

I cant see any real reason why person would be sorry for being circumcised since its not that big deal and has some health benefits. Circumcision doesn't bind you to any religion since one can be circed without being part of any religion.
And key point in doing it when baby is that you dont remember that pain and it heals way more faster than when done later.
For some odd reason when done at around time of birth circ leaves dark ring like scar. As far as I know when done later it doesnt make that ring type scar.

Well, it should be left to the individual, and like I said, painkillers can be given.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

Flapjack
July 16th, 2017, 05:39 PM
I cant see any real reason why person would be sorry for being circumcised since its not that big deal and has some health benefits.
Of course not buddy and I don't think anyone here is claiming people should be sorry for being circumcised?? If somebody chooses to have a circumcision done then good for them!! What they do with their body is their own business. Our issue is with people choosing what do to with other people's bodies, babies that can't consent, may have complications and may grow up to regret it.


And key point in doing it when baby is that you dont remember that pain and it heals way more faster than when done later.
Very true buddy, I had a complicated birth and I think I had surgery immediately after I was born and I am glad it happened as a baby because I can't remember it. The difference is that the surgery I had saved my life so was necessary, circumcision is pointless. You can't justify pointless permanent changes to a babies body just because they won't remember it.
Happily circumcised from birth and never had an issue with masturbation which I discovered at a very young age. A friend here at uni got circumcised at age 18 and the pain was terrible, and even more so when he boned up. He doesn't regret it but wishes it had been done at birth.
Yeah if you know you want it you wish it would have been done at birth. I know I really don't want it and so am glad it wasn't done at birth. This is why it is important that we chooseee what happens to our own bodies.

nat2003
July 18th, 2017, 10:16 AM
I would cut all babies for several reasons:
1-Dont rememebr pain
2-Better cosmetic rresult
3-Less painful that if u have to get it done after
4- Faster healing
5-AALtough many people talk about the nerve endings u dont remember what u never have

Bull
July 18th, 2017, 12:16 PM
I call bullshit on the "easier to clean" part. Just peel lff the foreskin and apply a bit of soap and water. It's no rocket science. Also circumsision can be done under anesthesia, you know? An acquiantance of mine has to do it for medical reasons and he will be put under.

For my friend it was not the procedure it was the recovery!

Stronk Serb
July 18th, 2017, 03:15 PM
For my friend it was not the procedure it was the recovery!

Painkillers?

mattsmith48
July 18th, 2017, 09:02 PM
1-Dont rememebr pain


Can anyone tell me in what other debate, this is an acceptable argument for something?

Painkillers?

Those can be addictive

Stronk Serb
July 19th, 2017, 03:19 AM
Can anyone tell me in what other debate, this is an acceptable argument for something?



Those can be addictive

They only would have to be used for a period of two weeks. Also it's not like everyone will become Doctor House who substitutes his daily meals for painkillers

Leon03
July 19th, 2017, 07:08 AM
Permanent alteration of human body parts without the person's qualified consent is wrong. Just because it is tradition or dady is so happy being circumcised. Does not justify to have this surgery performed on a baby or a child.
Those numerous arguments that "prove" the benfits of circumcision are too vague to balance out the risks of an operation.

nat2003
July 19th, 2017, 07:56 AM
Permanent alteration of human body parts without the person's qualified consent is wrong. Just because it is tradition or dady is so happy being circumcised. Does not justify to have this surgery performed on a baby or a child.
Those numerous arguments that "prove" the benfits of circumcision are too vague to balance out the risks of an operation.

But what are exactly the risks???

Can anyone tell me in what other debate, this is an acceptable argument for something?



Those can be addictive

Yeah you dont remeber annything and it can prevent or at least reduce the posibilities of getting some diseases like HIV and u are younger so dont remember anything.
Its like when u oppose to a vaccination, probably the child is unable to know the dangers of it but u have much more benifits than risks

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

Leon03
July 19th, 2017, 08:27 AM
But what are exactly the risks???

The general risks of a surgery like
- anesthesia complications
- bleeding during or post operative
- blood clots
- delayed healing
- infections
- excessive scar tissue

just to mention some of them.
You are right! Chances for those risks are little for a standard circumcision. But the benefits as well.

Yeah you dont remeber annything and it can prevent or at least reduce the posibilities of getting some diseases like HIV and u are younger so dont remember anything.

And why is the HIV prevalence rate in the U.S. higher than in most European countries?

Global view of HIV infection in 2006 (https://goo.gl/images/C1aUEG)

2006 statistics though but circumcision rate has not significantly changed in either Europe and the U.S.

Plus: Does it make things right just because you cannot remember the procedure? Way too many men wish they had been given the choice.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

Periphery
July 19th, 2017, 09:20 AM
Can anyone tell me in what other debate, this is an acceptable argument for something?



Those can be addictive

So you never take painkillers by the logic that they "can be addictive"?

mattsmith48
July 19th, 2017, 10:01 AM
Yeah you dont remeber annything and it can prevent or at least reduce the posibilities of getting some diseases like HIV and u are younger so dont remember anything.
Its like when u oppose to a vaccination, probably the child is unable to know the dangers of it but u have much more benifits than risks

That doesn't answer my question. In what other debate, the baby not being able to remember the pain is an acceptable argument for something?

The only purpose of vaccines is to prevent and protect us against diseases, there is no scientific evidence that circumcision can prevent or reduce the risk of getting diseases and rare are the parents who actually do it for this reason alone.


Plus: Does it make things right just because you cannot remember the procedure? Way too many men wish they had had given the choice.

That's my point there is no other debate where not being able to remember pain is a acceptable argument in favour of something.

So you never take painkillers by the logic that they "can be addictive"?

Are you me if I never took any or are you asking for my opinion on whether we should prescribe them?

Kevin2
July 19th, 2017, 11:34 AM
I personally don't think circumcision is ok because I think it requires the consent of the child that is being circumcised... But of course a baby can't give consent. In addition, it can ruin a bunch of nerve endings on the penis which results in the reduction of sexual pleasure. I personally would not want to be circumcised, and it was the decision of my parents to circumcise me which is unfortunate because I would have wanted the extra foreskin. Well. that's my veiw anyways, and Idk about the rest of you guys.

nat2003
July 19th, 2017, 01:42 PM
The general risks of a surgery like
- anesthesia complications
- bleeding during or post operative
- blood clots
- delayed healing
- infections
- excessive scar tissue

just to mention some of them.
You are right! Chances for those risks are little for a standard circumcision. But the benefits as well.



And why is the HIV prevalence rate in the U.S. higher than in most European countries?

Global view of HIV infection in 2006 (https://goo.gl/images/C1aUEG)

2006 statistics though but circumcision rate has not significantly changed in either Europe and the U.S.

Plus: Does it make things right just because you cannot remember the procedure? Way too many men wish they had been given the choice.

Posts merged. ~Amethyst Rose

Thats a google picture and not everythhing is correct in google.As u can observe the Prevalence of circumcision is higher in USA than in the rest of Europe(you are right about that) But u should consider more things:
1-Circumcision REDUCES not elimates the possibilities of getting HIV
2-Probably the prevalence of HIV would be higher if most americans werent circumcised
3-Probably the prevalence would decline if americans dont do sexual risk practices (like fucking without condom) and thats why americans should learn about europeans
You can read this link to obtein more information that says the same i am saying.Btw this is medical journal not just a picture of google(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/)
The summary of the article is :
epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea,3,4 and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcision may be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time. Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensive instruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (which were continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms, and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmission of HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientific attention onto the foreskin. Why does its removal reduce a man's susceptibility to HIV infection?

Leon03
July 19th, 2017, 04:16 PM
Thats a google picture and not everythhing is correct in google.As u can observe the Prevalence of circumcision is higher in USA than in the rest of Europe(you are right about that) But u should consider more things:
1-Circumcision REDUCES not elimates the possibilities of getting HIV
2-Probably the prevalence of HIV would be higher if most americans werent circumcised
3-Probably the prevalence would decline if americans dont do sexual risk practices (like fucking without condom) and thats why americans should learn about europeans
You can read this link to obtein more information that says the same i am saying.Btw this is medical journal not just a picture of google(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/)
The summary of the article is :
epidemiological evidence from over 40 studies which shows that male circumcision provides significant protection against HIV infection; circumcised males are two to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV.2 Furthermore, circumcision also protects against other sexually transmitted infections, such as syphilis and gonorrhoea,3,4 and since people who have a sexually transmitted infection are two to five times more likely to become infected with HIV,5 circumcision may be even more protective. The most dramatic evidence of the protective effect of circumcision comes from a new study of couples in Uganda who had discordant HIV status; in this study the woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not.6 No new infections occurred among any of the 50 circumcised men over 30 months, whereas 40 of 137 uncircumcised men became infected during this time. Both groups had been given free access to HIV testing, intensive instruction about preventing infection, and free condoms (which were continuously available), but 89% of the men never used condoms, and condom use did not seem to influence the rate of transmission of HIV. These findings should focus the spotlight of scientific attention onto the foreskin. Why does its removal reduce a man's susceptibility to HIV infection?

I give in. If you believe that circumcision protects more than condoms - fine.

Isn't it rather dangerous to praise circumcision this way? Is it ok to make people believe they are save(r) if they are circumcised? Leading them into temptation to act thoughtless because they got the protective snip?

Regardless if those studies are faked or not. To me those are desperate attempts to justify circumcision. Almost every generation brought up their own ones.

John Harvey Kellogg:
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.


Later circumcision was justified to prevent phimosis and infections of the urinary tract (even before the HIV prevention was focused on). Penile cancer and what so ever.
This sounds weird just like recommending to remove the appendix and tonsils of a newborn to prevent their inflamation.
Penile cancer rate in countries that dont circumcise is a little higher than in countries that circumcise. But it is also proved that phimosis is a risk factor for this sort of rare cancer. Hence phimosis is a true reason to consider circumcision as one possible treatment.

nat2003
July 19th, 2017, 06:02 PM
I give in. If you believe that circumcision protects more than condoms - fine.

Isn't it rather dangerous to praise circumcision this way? Is it ok to make people believe they are save(r) if they are circumcised? Leading them into temptation to act thoughtless because they got the protective snip?

Regardless if those studies are faked or not. To me those are desperate attempts to justify circumcision. Almost every generation brought up their own ones.

John Harvey Kellogg:
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.


Later circumcision was justified to prevent phimosis and infections of the urinary tract (even before the HIV prevention was focused on). Penile cancer and what so ever.
This sounds weird just like recommending to remove the appendix and tonsils of a newborn to prevent their inflamation.
Penile cancer rate in countries that dont circumcise is a little higher than in countries that circumcise. But it is also proved that phimosis is a risk factor for this sort of rare cancer. Hence phimosis is a true reason to consider circumcision as one possible treatment.

Well maybe you are right than the babies should decide if they want to get cut or not.
But are u saying me that a study that is published in a scientific journal (which depends of an association of doctors) is not valid??
Then by the same logic if u give medication for epilepsy is wrong, because 1000 years ago they think it was a disease from GOD.
Maybe you should accept that there are MEDICAL evidences which says circumcision reduces the risk altough you dont think is MORALLY correct to circumcise babies just for that reason
I dont understand why u try to oppose to the medical evidences. The same evidences that in the last 100 years have increased about 20 years our life expectancy

Kooy
July 19th, 2017, 06:19 PM
A lots been covered already but id like to say being born hypothesis despite them not doing it this way anymore i was cut so the skin could be used as an emergency urethra.

Snowfox
July 19th, 2017, 07:29 PM
Kooy in case of hypospadias they still do it that way.

Kooy
July 19th, 2017, 08:48 PM
Kooy in case of hypospadias they still do it that way.

Now they use skin from the mouth

Snowfox
July 19th, 2017, 09:20 PM
Kooy That skin from mouth may be used in some cases but in case of hypospadias foreskin usually is not formed completelly anyway. So if foreskin didnt exist as it should be at first place why not to use that incomplete forskin as skingraft?
Anyway also that mouth skin usage is uncommon in some parts of world like where I live they always use forskin.

Kooy
July 19th, 2017, 11:47 PM
Kooy That skin from mouth may be used in some cases but in case of hypospadias foreskin usually is not formed completelly anyway. So if foreskin didnt exist as it should be at first place why not to use that incomplete forskin as skingraft?
Anyway also that mouth skin usage is uncommon in some parts of world like where I live they always use forskin.

Forskin is bad to use (I know from living the reason why) whe skin from the mouth is closer to the real deal while the forskin can cause complications) hope you're aria updates soon so less people go through what I am now

Leon03
July 20th, 2017, 04:07 AM
Well maybe you are right than the babies should decide if they want to get cut or not.
Perfectly correct. Wait until those babies are 13 or 14 and try to convince them using your arguments. This is legit because they have very little chances to get any std by having sex and penile cancer occurs not within their age band.
It would be interesting to know how many of those can be convinced to undergo circumcision for your arguments.

But are u saying me that a study that is published in a scientific journal (which depends of an association of doctors) is not valid??
Because doctors make money with circumcision. Usually the same doctors who praise their benefits.
One of the many medical progresses over the last few years are the minimal invasive surgeries combined with conservative treatments for many diseases. Why then chop off a body part of a newborn to prevent rare diseases that beyond the little chance of their occurence only affect older men or sexual active people?

Then by the same logic if u give medication for epilepsy is wrong, because 1000 years ago they think it was a disease from GOD.
You are right. But you are talking about a disease that we are able to control to a certain extent now because we developped treatments.
Circumcision is a treatment. So we should stop to constantly look for a disease to cure with...
Big difference to me.

Maybe you should accept that there are MEDICAL evidences which says circumcision reduces the risk altough you dont think is MORALLY correct to circumcise babies just for that reason
I dont understand why u try to oppose to the medical evidences.
I do not oppose them. I try to balance the risks and the chances.
I don't want to sound too drastic but imagine something went terribly wrong and the baby did not wake up from anesthesia anymore. Does it comfort the parents to know that their baby died for the little less chance to develope penile cancer in his sixties or to get any std in his teenage the earliest?

The same evidences that in the last 100 years have increased about 20 years our life expectancy
One thing for sure: Circumcision neither has nor will increase the average life expectancy.

nat2003
July 20th, 2017, 10:46 AM
Perfectly correct. Wait until those babies are 13 or 14 and try to convince them using your arguments. This is legit because they have very little chances to get any std by having sex and penile cancer occurs not within their age band.
It would be interesting to know how many of those can be convinced to undergo circumcision for your arguments.

Lol probably the circumcision rate would decline. Although as you probably know in some countries like south korea is very common to get circumcised during ur teenage years or when you are around 10.So maybe it wouldnt decline but all that things are expeculations.


Because doctors make money with circumcision. Usually the same doctors who praise their benefits.
One of the many medical progresses over the last few years are the minimal invasive surgeries combined with conservative treatments for many diseases. Why then chop off a body part of a newborn to prevent rare diseases that beyond the little chance of their occurence only affect older men or sexual active people?
Yeah they make money performing circumcisions and yeah they are the same doctors probably becuase it would be stupid that a cardiologist do a research about penises right???Urologist who perfom circumcisions are the ones who know more about the issue.
Well if u want to say the HIV is a rare disease......( i think there are around 36 million people with the "rare" disease) and when u say it "ONLY" affects to sexual active people. I mean when u reach certain age everybody is a sexually active person right?


You are right. But you are talking about a disease that we are able to control to a certain extent now because we developped treatments.
Circumcision is a treatment. So we should stop to constantly look for a disease to cure with...
Big difference to me.
Circumcision is like a condom.Both of them reduces the possibilities of getting HIV.Its your decision to to put the condom or not but it REDUCES THE RISKS


I do not oppose them. I try to balance the risks and the chances.
I don't want to sound too drastic but imagine something went terribly wrong and the baby did not wake up from anesthesia anymore. Does it comfort the parents to know that their baby died for the little less chance to develope penile cancer in his sixties or to get any std in his teenage the earliest?


One thing for sure: Circumcision neither has nor will increase the average life expectancy.
Lol it has increased our avarage life epectancy probbaly it is insignifcant but if it helps to reduces HIV it has helped to increase avarage life expectancy.
Just one last thing:
YOu are right about the thing that babies should decide if they want to get cut or not
But could u please say me why the hell are u saying that circumcision doesnt reduces HIV possibilities??I mean probably in your opinion it is a minimal change but it helps.

Leon03
July 21st, 2017, 06:43 AM
Lol it has increased our avarage life epectancy probbaly it is insignifcant but if it helps to reduces HIV it has helped to increase avarage life expectancy.
Just one last thing:
YOu are right about the thing that babies should decide if they want to get cut or not
But could u please say me why the hell are u saying that circumcision doesnt reduces HIV possibilities??I mean probably in your opinion it is a minimal change but it helps.

The different statistics about HIV and circumcision do not come to a common result. Some write about 60% some about less than 5%. This makes me doubt because I never trust a statistic that I haven't faked myself :yeah:.

The headline "Circumcision reduces HIV" makes me feel uncomfortable. Because it only applys for men not for women. And only for vaginal sex. Imho the whole subject is way too complicated and complex to be reduced to just that statement. Beyond catchwords like those may lead to careless behavior and spread a feeling of security - that is very dangerous in this case.

So if circumcision reduced the chances to get HIV fine but no one is able to prove this false or right by a scientific experiment because this would be morally unacceptable for exposing the subject group to severe medical risks. Anything else is mere (pseudo-)statistics with way too many unknown factors.

That's why this argument to me is out of place to justify circumcision.

hogwartsthestral
July 30th, 2017, 12:06 PM
Okay, and beneficial. Any kid of mine with a penis absolutely will be circumcised, it's cleaner, healthier, and lowers their risk of catching various infections and STIs. It's not very popular where I live, but no way any kid of mine would be left with a foreskin to deal with!

Flapjack
July 30th, 2017, 12:08 PM
Okay, and beneficial. Any kid of mine with a penis absolutely will be circumcised, it's cleaner, healthier, and lowers their risk of catching various infections and STIs. It's not very popular where I live, but no way any kid of mine would be left with a foreskin to deal with!
How would you feel if your child wishes to not be circumcised when he grows up?

NewLeafsFan
August 1st, 2017, 01:35 AM
No, there's nothing wrong with it. I got circumcised at 18 and there are a few minor changes but I can't say that i prefer one over the other. The whole sexual sensations decrease is false. Yes, nerve endings are killed but you would never know it!

PlasmaHam
August 1st, 2017, 08:33 AM
How would you feel if your child wishes to not be circumcised when he grows up?

Why would they? Most people aren't that obsessive with their penis, and you have yet to show that there are any sensational or physical limitations that result from it. There will be a cosmetic change, but it is on your penis, unless your child want to become a male stripper or a porn star, I doubt they will ever care.

hogwartsthestral
August 1st, 2017, 05:42 PM
How would you feel if your child wishes to not be circumcised when he grows up?

I'd explain to him that it was cleaner and healthier for him, and that because I loved him I wanted to make sure he was as protected as possible from infection and disease.

Matryoshkasystem
August 7th, 2017, 01:28 AM
Okay...this is too everyone who is saying they'd circumcise their sons for health reasons. They suffer nerve damage, permanent mental trauma-yes you are traumatizing your child-,a higher risk for anger issues and a form of PTSD-due to the fact it is the loss of a functioning part of a baby's body- plus it is MERGED to the glans of the penis until usually around 5 till puberty-though sometimes it's unfused way earlier-. Not to mention the fact you are practiacally ruining his future sex life by removing a vital part of the sex organ-prevents the keratinziation of the penis,holds esentailly the most nerves, and aacts as an erogenous zone and reduces the need for lube-. Then add onto the fact 100 PROPERLY REPORTED deaths of infants occur due to it. Not to ignore the potential killers which are strokes,infections,bleeding, and anaesthesia. Not to ignore the fact that a lot of the health bonuses are bogus.

Hygenics, first off the foreskin itself is MERGED to the penis head, aka there is no need to clean underneath until he reaches at least the age of usually five till puberty. Infact you have to clean more to keep a circumcised boy hygenic then you do an uncircumcised boy.

Sexually and in daily life poses many uses, in fact twelve.

1.to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2.to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3.to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
4.to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5.to lubricate the glans.
6.to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7.to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8.to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9.toserve as an aid to penetration.
10.to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11.to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12.to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.

Warning some pictures of penises are on some links
http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html
http://cirp.org/library/psych/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Short-HIV.html

Niceguy17
August 8th, 2017, 01:01 AM
I hate society so much for defending circumcisions. People deserve a choice. It's wrong to do something that affects your child forever just because your too lazy to teach them how to clean themselves.

hogwartsthestral
August 11th, 2017, 02:58 PM
I hate society so much for defending circumcisions. People deserve a choice. It's wrong to do something that affects your child forever just because your too lazy to teach them how to clean themselves.

Not circumcising them affects them forever, too. They can never go back and be circumcised as a baby. Sure, they can do it, but the results often aren't as good, and they won't get the benefits of a cleaner, healthier childhood - and if they lose their virginity as teens, safer sex during their first encounters - if they aren't circumcised when young.

So, if either thing I pick will affect them forever, I'm going to pick circumcision, since it's a positive effect, not foreskin, which is harmful to them.

Flapjack
August 13th, 2017, 07:46 AM
Not circumcising them affects them forever, too.
How so?

What do you say to all the people that had circumcision forced upon them as babies and wish it hadn't been?

Dalcourt
August 13th, 2017, 09:51 PM
What I don't understand about the whole thing is why does the male body grow a foreskin if it is so bad for health reasons or whatever?
I mean if it would be bad for the male to have it why did it not disappear through evolution. The bodies of all creatures adapt through evolution to ensure the survival of their kind, if the male foreskin had any bad effects why did nature not let it disappear for the sake of ensuring more healthier males for this species?

kro814
August 13th, 2017, 09:53 PM
I am circumcised and so is everyone in my class. so far I have never even see a boy that ain't cut.

Diana2002
August 18th, 2017, 08:48 AM
I would never circumcise my kid if i'd have a boy

Riley2015
August 20th, 2017, 03:38 PM
If i had a child and it was a boy i personally wouldn't have it circumcised unless it needed it for medical reasons. However, if a parent wishes to have their baby circumcised then i think we have to allow them that choice even though i personally don't agree with it i think if the parents really want their child circumcised they will go ahead and have it done and we have no laws in place to stop it so its gonna happen anyway whether its morally right or not, so i dunno really :confused:

jamie_n5
August 21st, 2017, 07:24 PM
I think that circumcision has been so overused in the United States since after WWII. Doctors here seemed to get the idea that it would help males out so much to be circumcised. As we now know that is a bunch of hogwash. If an uncut guy practices good hygiene and safe sex there is no problem anymore than a cut guy has. I believe it's a violation of human rights to take some ones body part without reason or permission. Thank God that people in the USA are finally starting to see that and circumcision here has finally slowed down. As said God put a foreskin there for a purpose. We don't need our spleens or appendixes or gall bladders or tonsils. Do you see doctors needlessly taking these things out because they can become diseased or damaged in later life and need to come out. Hell no!! Well in my opinion the same goes with foreskins. Thank God I still have mine.