[Autumnleaf]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I've heard circumcision severely damages male sensitivity in that area. What do you think of it?

[Arcanist]

I find it a barbaric practice but some primitive religions place an odd importance upon it. I'm glad my parents chose not to mutilate me.

[Nightmare]

To answer your inquiry, yes it does. Harmfully and permanently so. And it is barbaric. The history of it is disgusting. Anyone who willingly does this to their child without first looking at how awful it is and questioning doctor's motives deserves to be lobotomized.

I would ask anyone looking to challenge my claims to please not do so, as this is a really sensitive issue for me. I've said all I've had to.

[PRBori]

The rational behind it is more medical than anything else. A child and/or adult male is more prone to extended infections when they are not circumscised. In that sense, it is preferred that a child be circumcised.

Personally I have no issues with it and it is preferred on my end for my kids. This is truly a personal decision for the parents to take. A new born is the best time, not like other places where they wait until they are about 5-7 years old. The difference between the two is that one is never remembered, while the latest can be remembered and could have a psychological impact on the child.

[Beezlebub]

If this is what people are calling problems they live in a dream world. Let's worry about starving children and the NSA collecting all of our email/forum/facebook posts instead of some skin that isn't essential to life.

Oh, and save the poor children who get their ears pierced as well :rollseyes:

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The rational behind it is more medical than anything else. A child and/or adult male is more prone to extended infections when they are not circumscised. In that sense, it is preferred that a child be circumcised.

False. No evidence whatsoever to support this.

	Personally I have no issues with it and it is preferred on my end for my kids. This is truly a personal decision for the parents to take. A new born is the best time, not like other places where they wait until they are about 5-7 years old. The difference between the two is that one is never remembered, while the latest can be remembered and could have a psychological impact on the child.

Oh, the child remembers, and in ways you don't understand. Also, how about letting your child discover if he actually WANTS THE PROCEDURE DONE before going and DOING IT FOR THEM. It's called the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF BODILY INTEGRITY. You are infringing a NATURAL ANIMAL RIGHT.

You have absolutely no right to surgically transform a sentient, helpless human being without their consent. Watch as your baby son does not give consent as he wrestles against his restraints while a doctor removes the most sensitive part of his male anatomy. Watch as his sexual function is instantly transformed into not half of what it was. Congratulations, you just needlessly fucked up a person for life.

[Arcanist]

Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The rational behind it is more medical than anything else. A child and/or adult male is more prone to extended infections when they are not circumscised. In that sense, it is preferred that a child be circumcised. Personally I have no issues with it and it is preferred on my end for my kids. This is truly a personal decision for the parents to take. A new born is the best time, not like other places where they wait until they are about 5-7 years old. The difference between the two is that one is never remembered, while the latest can be remembered and could have a psychological impact on the child.

nightmar149 covered part of it. The "medical" reasons are bunk. Cleaning oneself is not hard and neither is learning a bit of discretion when it comes to where you stick it in. Inflicting incredible pain on an infant and mutilating him is wrong regardless of your nebulous medical reasons.

[PRBori]

Originally Posted by nightmar149 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You have absolutely no right to surgically transform a sentient, helpless human being without their consent. Watch as your baby son does not give consent as he wrestles against his restraints while a doctor removes the most sensitive part of his male anatomy. Watch as his sexual function is instantly transformed into not half of what it was. Congratulations, you just needlessly fucked up a person for life.

I get that in your case it hurt you deeply, but everyone has their own views. And as far as I know my son turned out to be just fine. And no, he doesn't remember and it was a consensual agreement between the father and I. Had the father said otherwise it would be a different story. Is how life is for many.... And as said before, it is somehow a religious thing.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A child and/or adult male is more prone to extended infections when they are not circumscised. In that sense, it is preferred that a child be circumcised.

This isn't true unless you refuse to wash your children. With proper hygiene there's no increase in risk of infection.

It's cultural far more than medical.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by nightmar149 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh, the child remembers, and in ways you don't understand.

I don't remember. I must not understand either.

	. . . . Watch as your baby son does not give consent . . .

I don't know of any way for an infant to legally give consent.

	. . as he wrestles against his restraints while a doctor removes the most sensitive part of his male anatomy.

Much like when his diaper is changed.

[PRBori]

	Originally Posted by Arcanist To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	nightmar149 covered part of it. The "medical" reasons are bunk. Cleaning oneself is not hard and neither is learning a bit of discretion when it comes to where you stick it in. Inflicting incredible pain on an infant and mutilating him is wrong regardless of your nebulous medical reasons.

If man were careful on who they sleep with, then this wouldn't be an issues, but they are not always careful. I know someone who is not circumsised and has been unlucky to get quite a few STDs. I don't know all the details, but I do know he had a hard time dealing with it. Just saying, it might be interesting to see a study detailing the recovery timeframe for both situations and determine which one recovers faster.

[Ghostwheel]

An unnecessary, non-consenual medical procedure from a more primitive era that has no place in an advanced society.

Routine circumcision as a preventative or cure for masturbation was proposed in Victorian times in America. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of a number of diseases. The procedure of routine circumcision became commonplace between 1870 and 1920, and it consequently spread to all the English-speaking countries (England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). None of these countries now circumcise the majority of their male children, a distinction reserved today for the United States (in the UK, in fact, nonreligious circumcision has virtually ceased). Yet, there are still those who promote this social surgery, long after the masturbation hysteria of the past century has subsided. [....] A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. 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. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. Link: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Disgusting, superstitious, primitive, heartless, and repressed.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I get that in your case it hurt you deeply, but everyone has their own views.

See, the thing about people like you is that you don't even know what it is that your view actually is. You will believe anything a doctor tells you.

	And as far as I know my son turned out to be just fine.

He has hardly 'turned out fine'. Say goodbye to more than half of the pleasure receptors in his male genitalia. Say hello to continual keratinization and hardening of glandular skin causing even further pleasure decay. Say hello to lifelong diminishing sexual function.

But that's fine, right? Who cares, it's only his body that he has to live with for his entire life.

	And no, he doesn't remember

Wrong again. The strapping down of the infant and mutilation of his genitalia provokes a 300% increase in postnatal cortisol and stress hormone levels which immediately influences later-in-life emotional processing. So he might not be able to surface the memory of the event, but it is certainly visible in his wiring.

	Had the father said otherwise it would be a different story. Is how life is for many.... And as said before, it is somehow a religious thing.

A religious mechanism to prevent people from masturbating, as it is seen as obscene and 'unholy'. See the stupidity of that? If you don't you're a moron. It's a human control mechanism. I have no respect for Judaism and Islam as a result of their 'ritual circumcision' practices.

[mieu]

I personally think that it's a pretty violating practice, but I'm not male. Men should definitely take a stand to make themselves heard if they are against it, I have a feeling that there would be much support.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I know someone who is not circumsised and has been unlucky to get quite a few STDs. I don't know all the details, but I do know he had a hard time dealing with it. Just saying

Your friend tells us pretty much nothing.

[ummon]

	Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I've heard circumcision severely damages male sensitivity in that area. What do you think of it?

I've read claims both ways. Either way, I'm happy I wasn't circumcised. I can see the reasons to circumcise in countries with poor hygiene, but otherwise, I think it's a practice that is unjustifiable, as an infant cannot consent to it.

With respect to sensitivity, the common sense answer is that a circumcised penis constantly rubs against underwear and what not, and thus the sensitivity decreases over time. And that's neglecting any nerves that are chopped off.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by mieu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I personally think that it's a pretty violating practice, but I'm not male. Men should definitely take a stand to make themselves heard if they are against it, I have a feeling that there would be much support.

I can talk for men when I say they value and 'take pride in' their junk. Virtually nobody is willing to look at the information and say 'this is fucked up, let's make a stand'. In fact, most men go through their lives denying part of their body is fucked up because of the pride/ego issue. If I haven't made myself clear yet, I'm not one of those people in denial.

And the sad truth is, there will never be enough support for an issue like this. Why? Because doctors like getting paid. Also, doctors in training like getting paid as well. Why would I bring up trainees? One of the motherfuckers had a great time fucking up my body, the cunt. Rant aside, the west has adopted the mentality of 'I do what my doctor says is right', and nobody is looking to revolt against their urologists, right?

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Aronnax To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This isn't true unless you refuse to wash your children. With proper hygiene there's no increase in risk of infection. It's cultural far more than medical.

Just out of curiosity, what's your source for that? According to
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
article circumcision decreases the odds of contracting several STDs. The study was conducted in Africa so it may not have as much relevance for industrialized nations though.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by thebrainpolice To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just out of curiosity, what's your source for that? According to To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. article circumcision decreases the odds of contracting several STDs. The study was conducted in Africa so it may not have as much relevance for industrialized nations though.

The odds of contracting an STD is statistically a fraction of a percentage different from the uncircumcised to the circumcised male (I would recommend not looking at CNN as a valid source; read a study instead). So essentially, if you are going to have sex with someone who has an STD, you're going to get the STD regardless of if you're circumcised or not. This whole STD excuse was adopted in the 1970's to cover up the fact that it was beginning to look like human malpractice and that the religious arguments weren't adding up. As soon as the medical community strapped on the 'it lessens the risk of STD transmission!' people jumped back aboard the bandwagon and now we have a society where >50% of its men are fucked from birth.

But even in the CNN article itself...

	...but the American Academy of Pediatrics currently says that the medical benefits are insufficient to recommend circumcision for all baby boys.

[followthehippos]

When I attended the Bodies Exhibit where they show the human anatomy I came across the exhibit for the male genitalia. In one of the pieces it noted that uncircumcised males are more likely to get prostrate cancer as they get older because of the build up of bacteria (or something like that) underneath the skin unless they sufficiently keep themselves clean. I thought it was an interesting read.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When I attended the Bodies Exhibit where they show the human anatomy I came across the exhibit for the male genitalia. In one of the pieces it noted that uncircumcised males are more likely to get prostrate cancer as they get older because of the build up of bacteria (or something like that) underneath the skin unless they sufficiently keep themselves clean. I thought it was an interesting read.

What a load of bullshit. Notice the "unless they sufficiently keep themselves clean" bit. So if you're in a coal mine for your whole life and/or don't have access to sanitation your chances of cancer are increased? What a surprise!!!!

[True Rune]

I was circumsized, but I'm asexual. I doubt there is a link. I have no strong opinions one way or the other.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by followthehippos To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When I attended the Bodies Exhibit where they show the human anatomy I came across the exhibit for the male genitalia. In one of the pieces it noted that uncircumcised males are more likely to get prostrate cancer as they get older because of the build up of bacteria (or something like that) underneath the skin unless they sufficiently keep themselves clean. I thought it was an interesting read.

Surely, there are all manner of infections one can get if one doesn't keep oneself sufficiently clean, yes?

Shaving off your hair will protect against lice, but most of us elect to keep the mop on top and take our chances, right?

Freedom of choice and personal responsibility, as always, are key here.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't remember. I must not understand either.

Clearly.

	I don't know of any way for an infant to legally give consent.

Exactly.

	Much like when his diaper is changed.

What are you on about here?

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by nightmar149 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Clearly

So explain to me how I remember it.

	Exactly.

If that is really your position, there are all kinds of medical procedures performed on infants and kids that could not be performed because they can't give consent.

	What are you on about here?

You're complaining about "writhing against constraints". My kids did that when I changed their diaper, gave them a bath, put them in a car seat, and a number of other things. Should none of those things be done either?