meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are so off base. have you watched a circumcision first hand? sounds like all you've done is watch some anti-circumcision propaganda video on the net.Originally posted by: Reck
Originally posted by: BadNewsBears
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
given a choice, would you rather be?Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are uncut?Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
please close this thread before it turns into a 40 page debate, there are about 10 others of that length.
that said, fvck mutilated cox.
My son is uncut...
It's a moot point. I don't remember being circumcised as a baby and I have no experience of what it's like to be uncut. Having seen what is involved with circumcising a baby though I knew I didn't want to put my son through that. It just seemed totally unnecessary.
:thumbsup: for being a logical/good father! Your son will thank you when he grows up.
I am grown up and thank my father FOR doing it. Prone to infection,belly button lint for my cawk? no thanks, more 'folds' of skin to wash, fawkin ugly. Not put him throught it. Its a fukin baby man. What grown man remembers his day after birth? Wtf?
you're so lazy you can't be bothered to clean yourself then? that's pretty pathetic. hm and so it's ok to do whatever you want to infants since they won't remember? i've seen a video of a circumcision and i have never heard a child scream like that, it was heartbreaking. there is no doubt in my mind it is just flat out child abuse.
to save one person out of a hundred from getting hiv or a uti let's sarcrifice ninety nine mens sex lives! that's the kind of logic pro circers use and it's ludicrous. these doctors who are altering statisics to continue mutilating children are likely in it for the money or sadly they just like abusing children.
i have been present during a circ, and the doc used lidocaine to numb the area before the procedure. which is the same numbing agent they use in dentisty that allows you to not feel a thing during a cavity being drilled out or a tooth being pulled.
the child i watched squirmed but most likely because he was being held. the procedure is fast, and no where near your proclaimation of it being "child abuse" :roll:
and saying that docs are only doing it for the money is also off base. you could also say they do any surgery "for the money". i have never heard of a doc forcing a circ on a baby or forcing parents to give one to their child, so how can this be a "doing it for the money" thing?
save the drama next time.
actually the video i saw the doctor used topical anesthesia and a good portion of the time NO anesthesia is used. it's not uncommon for babies to throw up, go into shock or simply pass out due to the pain. you have no idea what you're talking about mosh.
yup and doctors often go ahead with the procedure without the parents consent. since they don't have to give the information lecture to the parents, it's easy money for them. then they sell the cutoff foreskin to skin clinics or whatever. circumcision is half a billion dollar a year industry, there is some serious money to be made.
JetsFanatic
Platinum Member
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are so off base. have you watched a circumcision first hand? sounds like all you've done is watch some anti-circumcision propaganda video on the net.Originally posted by: Reck
Originally posted by: BadNewsBears
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
given a choice, would you rather be?Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are uncut?Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
please close this thread before it turns into a 40 page debate, there are about 10 others of that length.
that said, fvck mutilated cox.
My son is uncut...
It's a moot point. I don't remember being circumcised as a baby and I have no experience of what it's like to be uncut. Having seen what is involved with circumcising a baby though I knew I didn't want to put my son through that. It just seemed totally unnecessary.
:thumbsup: for being a logical/good father! Your son will thank you when he grows up.
I am grown up and thank my father FOR doing it. Prone to infection,belly button lint for my cawk? no thanks, more 'folds' of skin to wash, fawkin ugly. Not put him throught it. Its a fukin baby man. What grown man remembers his day after birth? Wtf?
you're so lazy you can't be bothered to clean yourself then? that's pretty pathetic. hm and so it's ok to do whatever you want to infants since they won't remember? i've seen a video of a circumcision and i have never heard a child scream like that, it was heartbreaking. there is no doubt in my mind it is just flat out child abuse.
to save one person out of a hundred from getting hiv or a uti let's sarcrifice ninety nine mens sex lives! that's the kind of logic pro circers use and it's ludicrous. these doctors who are altering statisics to continue mutilating children are likely in it for the money or sadly they just like abusing children.
i have been present during a circ, and the doc used lidocaine to numb the area before the procedure. which is the same numbing agent they use in dentisty that allows you to not feel a thing during a cavity being drilled out or a tooth being pulled.
the child i watched squirmed but most likely because he was being held. the procedure is fast, and no where near your proclaimation of it being "child abuse" :roll:
and saying that docs are only doing it for the money is also off base. you could also say they do any surgery "for the money". i have never heard of a doc forcing a circ on a baby or forcing parents to give one to their child, so how can this be a "doing it for the money" thing?
save the drama next time.
So its ok to amputate an infant's body part as a long as you numb it? Its still child abuse whether you numb it or not. The surgeon/butcher is violating their body. Why, in your mind, don't male children have a right to bodily integrity? I'm sure if a surgeon/butcher wanted to start amputating baby girls' labia, you'd be up in arms, screaming about how a woman has a right to her body.
And you're just trying to avoid acknowledging that your parents had a butcher slice up your penis.
wow your description are really diverse - even after everyone explained to you that it's a simple cosmetic operation on the skin, you still use infantile exagerations like "slice up", "amputate", "cut off", "violating the body", "acting like a butcher", "mutilating". Sounds like you're describing a scene from a horror film
Ever seen a circumcision? It IS like a scene from a horror movie, especially if they don't use anesthetic.
I'm glad you've acknowleged that circumcision has no medical benefit. But explain to me this: What gives a parent the moral right to have unnecessary surgery performed on their newborn infant, and risk what you saw in that "Botched Circumcision" link a few posts back? Why shouldn't a child be able to make that choice for themselves when they are older and can communicate their wishes?
Here's another link for you: Infant boy bleeds to death after circumcision, 8-29-2002
yes I was present at many jewish "brith" (newborn circumcision ceremony) and while the baby usually does cry, the event's atmosphere is very joyful and happy.
And I still think it has health benefits, just read the thread title.
Accidents happen, you have a chance of getting killed every time you get into a car, and probably much more than the chance for a botched circumcision.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,639
- 136
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: JetsFanatic
glad i'm cut
why?
Do some research and get back to us.
Well, I am happy to be circumcised. I have done research on the topic, quite literally.
There is little to no downside to this very simple cosmetic procedure.
After healing there is a small loss in sensitivity, but most men when surveyed consider this a positive.
It does have certain advantages, mostly social and religious I admit. But if you ever decide to take
up the Jewish faith (or marry a Jewish girl) you will be glad your parents decided this when you were young.
Most men Circumcised after the age of 17 are happy with the procedure.
I am sorry, EatSpam, that you are so angry about what decisions his parents made for you, but you should not
let is cloud your judgements. Circumcision is a simple and harmless procedure. Not a barbaric mutilation.
They are the parents, that child is their ward. Their moral right to do what they feel is best for the child stems from the same moral grounds that allows them to feed, cloth, and change dirty diapers. The child is completely incapable of making any decisions for himself, so they must make all of them for him. Many parents will feel that the EXTREAMLY small chance of a Botched Circumcision is out weighed by the social and religious advantages of the circumcision. It is not only their right to make these decisions, it is their moral responsibility to do so.
DidlySquat clearly was not circumcised at an age when he could remember it (he refused to answer my question on that, but his posts lead me to assume that he had it done as an infant). If the pain I had at the age of 5 was any indication, it would be much worse for an adult. Any adult having just been circumcised will not be having much sex for a while. Having less sex == less chance of catching an STD. The "study" is full of holes and far from scientific; I need some reputable proof before I believe in your supposed "health benefits."
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
have you witnessed circumcisions? have you been physically in the room?Originally posted by: Reck
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are so off base. have you watched a circumcision first hand? sounds like all you've done is watch some anti-circumcision propaganda video on the net.Originally posted by: Reck
Originally posted by: BadNewsBears
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
given a choice, would you rather be?Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: moshquerade
you are uncut?Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
please close this thread before it turns into a 40 page debate, there are about 10 others of that length.
that said, fvck mutilated cox.
My son is uncut...
It's a moot point. I don't remember being circumcised as a baby and I have no experience of what it's like to be uncut. Having seen what is involved with circumcising a baby though I knew I didn't want to put my son through that. It just seemed totally unnecessary.
:thumbsup: for being a logical/good father! Your son will thank you when he grows up.
I am grown up and thank my father FOR doing it. Prone to infection,belly button lint for my cawk? no thanks, more 'folds' of skin to wash, fawkin ugly. Not put him throught it. Its a fukin baby man. What grown man remembers his day after birth? Wtf?
you're so lazy you can't be bothered to clean yourself then? that's pretty pathetic. hm and so it's ok to do whatever you want to infants since they won't remember? i've seen a video of a circumcision and i have never heard a child scream like that, it was heartbreaking. there is no doubt in my mind it is just flat out child abuse.
to save one person out of a hundred from getting hiv or a uti let's sarcrifice ninety nine mens sex lives! that's the kind of logic pro circers use and it's ludicrous. these doctors who are altering statisics to continue mutilating children are likely in it for the money or sadly they just like abusing children.
i have been present during a circ, and the doc used lidocaine to numb the area before the procedure. which is the same numbing agent they use in dentisty that allows you to not feel a thing during a cavity being drilled out or a tooth being pulled.
the child i watched squirmed but most likely because he was being held. the procedure is fast, and no where near your proclaimation of it being "child abuse" :roll:
and saying that docs are only doing it for the money is also off base. you could also say they do any surgery "for the money". i have never heard of a doc forcing a circ on a baby or forcing parents to give one to their child, so how can this be a "doing it for the money" thing?
save the drama next time.
actually the video i saw the doctor used topical anesthesia and a good portion of the time NO anesthesia is used. it's not uncommon for babies to throw up, go into shock or simply pass out due to the pain. you have no idea what you're talking about mosh.
yup and doctors often go ahead with the procedure without the parents consent. since they don't have to give the information lecture to the parents, it's easy money for them. then they sell the cutoff foreskin to skin clinics or whatever. circumcision is half a billion dollar a year industry, there is some serious money to be made.
if not, you have no idea what you are talking about.
you are so FOS saying that docs go ahead with the procedure without the parent's concent!!!!! they do not do that in the United States!
where are you getting this information? site sources - be specific!
abusurd. social benefits? maybe as people are very shallow. religious benefits? don't make me laugh. jewish circumcision is a branding, similar to what farmers do to livestock. so much for giving the right to choose religion. of course jews at a bris milah are happy, it's not their genitals being cut up.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
since you and diddly can't be bothered to read links it seems.
The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:
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 thoughout 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. to serve 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
so how is it a good thing to destroy these functions?
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/
The "triple whammy"
The circumcised penis loses sensitivity in three ways:
1. Loss of the foreskin nerves themselves. As has been demonstrated by studies such as the one by Dr. Taylor and by the testimonials of the majority of intact men, the inner foreskin possesses a greater density of nerve endings. It is thought to be more erogenous than even the glans. The is no question that the foreskin is a highly erogenous tissue. This tremendous amount of sensitivity is lost completely when the forefold of the skin system is amputated. In addition to this, the most sensitive part of the penis, the frenulum of the foreskin, is either partially or totally removed in most infant circumcisions. The frenulum is the continuation of the inner foreskin which attaches to the underside (ventral part) of the glans. Thus, a significant percentage, if not the majority, of erogenous nerve supply to the penis is removed in circumcision at birth.
2. Damage to the glans. The erogenous sensitivity that remains after circumcision is primarily in the glans. This is further reduced by removal of the protective foreskin which leaves the glans permanently exposed. Unlike the shaft of the penis, and most of the rest of the body, the head of the penis, does not posses its own attached skin. This structure, like the eye ball and the gums of the mouth, is a somewhat naked structure. Its surface is non-keratinized, like that of the gums, the eye ball, and the clitoris in women. That means that it does not posses a protective thick layer like the keratinized skin of the outer penile skin system. Like the gums and the eye ball, the glans of the intact penis has a retractible skin covering. The skin covering of the glans is the foreskin. The eyelid is very similar in architecture to the foreskin. If the eyelid were removed and the eyeball were to become keratinized, you'd have a much harder time seeing. The same is true of the glans. It becomes artificially keratinized (dry, ha rdened, discolored, and wrinkled) as a result of permanent exposure, and thus less sensitive. Because most American men are circumcised and have a glans of this nature, it is harder to notice the abnormality. But just compare the glans of an intact man with that of a circumcised man next to each other and you'll notice a big difference. Thus, in addition to removing lots of erogenous nerve endings in the inner foreskin and frenulum, circumcision further desensitizes the remaining sensitivity of the glans by leaving it exposed.
3. Loss of skin mobility. The nerve endings in the glans are predominantly complex touch receptors also known as mechanoreceptors. This is different from the light touch receptors of the skin which detect surface friction. The mechanorecptors are best stimulated by massage action rather than surface friction. Thus, the glans is best stimulated to feel pleasure by a rolling massage action. With an ample and highly mobile skin system that rolls over the glans with pressure from the opposing surface, this optimal stimulation of the glans is achieved while avoiding direct friction of the delicate glans surface. Direct friction tends to fire off pain receptors causing irritation and also causes further keratinization of the glans. With the skin system of the penis significantly reduced by circumcision, the mobility is essentially gone and now the penis is a static mass with no dynamic self stimulation mechanism. Now, it must be rubbed. Direct friction is now the primary form of stimulation. So then circumcision further reduces erogenous sensitivity in the penis by reducing skin mobility and thus the ability to use the foreskin to massage the glans. The combination of foreskin and glans in concert results in an even higher level of stimulation which is unknown to the circumcised male.
Previous studies have linked circumcision with increased HIV infection.
From the original article. Hardly a study to be trusted now is it?
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
jesuschrist. if the man says he's glad he's cut leave him the fvck alone.Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: JetsFanatic
glad i'm cut
why?
Do some research and get back to us.
you can be glad you are circumcised or glad you are not. no one else has to push their agendas or feelings upon you.
the nerve :roll:
no I was talking about experience with both uncut and circumcised. Plus she's probably got more than just "hands" on experience.
Not if you are born in other parts of the world. Its still very popular in many African and Muslim nations. Its done for the same reasons male circumcision is done here - because a parent had it done, it helps the affected "fit in", and the usual cultural and religous excuses.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For every article on the net like you've found there is another one proclaiming the benefits of circumcision:
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
about to leave work so didnt get the chance to read the last 6 or so pages of thread, lol, how i managed this far is testament to how boring it is at work today....
The penis is made imperfect by circumcision.......in one simple way thats already been commented on elsewhere in a different arguement on this thread. The penis loses a degree of sensitivity, which admittedly has a plus point in that it can allow a man to last a little longer before letting the flavour flood out, however it also means less chance of him being able to cum so therefore being a less suitable mate for procreational reasons.....all of which is still relevant in human subconcious levels.....the primal urge, altho heavily depleted in humans compared to most animals, still exists in us. I dont have proof of this, but it makes sense if you ask me, proof may even exist, i just cant be arsed to find it..lol
oh, im uncut.....quite happy with my ultra sensitivity.......have learned to hold back by mixing penetration with intervals of oral fun, now thats something women definitely like from my experience ;-)
In fact 2 of my g/f said they found men who had been snipped tended to prefer to get it in and keep going till they finished, rather boring.....
but tbh, i couldnt give a monkeys, i am how i am and im happy enough not to worry about changing it.
(oh, and lets just do a check here, europeans and africans get more sex in their lives than those in the US, at least last time i saw a report of the sort, dont ask me when, few years ago, and we are mostly uncut...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter