Circumcision Poll

[letdown427]

EatSpam, what's 'calling shens' ? Can't say I've heard that before.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

Until the reports of infection start pouring in from the uncirc folks. It's real I have lots of German relatives getting circed at 50 ain?t a pretty picture.

Personally, I'd take circumcision at 50 with tons of Vicodin vs. an infant circ with no anethesia and no foreskin throughout my life. Besides, just because some people have foreskin problems doesn't mean that everyone will.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

It would be interesting to poll European and Mexican men, as very few of them are cut. We'd see if they're truly 30 second wonders as you suggest.

YOU are the one suggesting it by saying uncircs are so much more sensitive.

Sensitivity != finishing sooner. I have way more sensitivity after a little foreskin restoration and I last a lot longer. So my wife and I have longer sex and I enjoy it a lot more.

do you and your wife have sex more often since your foreskin restoration?

No, but we were already having sex at least once a day anyway. She doesn't get sore anymore either.

sore from what?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: letdown427
EatSpam, what's 'calling shens' ? Can't say I've heard that before.

Its an ATOT forum thing... it mean calling something a lie or BS.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

Well on the forums, there is someone who had the before/after experience, and he says the loss of sensitivity was NOT good.
You can't really make a judgement based on stuff you don't have a clue about.

the loss of sensitivity was NOT good for who?

You can't really make a judgement based on stuff you don't have a clue about.
1. Try and stop me
2. Who says i have no clue about it?

 

[hjo3]

There was a trend in the 80s that said it was unhealthy to remove things from the body unless absolutely critical for survival... but it came slightly after I was born, and thus I have my tonsils but no foreskin. Thanks a lot, mom and dad.

My boyfriend actually supports circumcision, but I think that's just 'cause he thinks uncut wangs look repulsive and believes the procedure has no adverse effect (mentally) on the baby (which I'm not entirely convinced of).

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

Until the reports of infection start pouring in from the uncirc folks. It's real I have lots of German relatives getting circed at 50 ain?t a pretty picture.

Personally, I'd take circumcision at 50 with tons of Vicodin vs. an infant circ with no anethesia and no foreskin throughout my life. Besides, just because some people have foreskin problems doesn't mean that everyone will.

why you persist in this ridiculousness is beyond me.

infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

now let's see you break out that propaganda site where an infant is crying during a circ.
what baby doesn't cry when it is held still for a bit?

same ****, different day for you EatSpam

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

It would be interesting to poll European and Mexican men, as very few of them are cut. We'd see if they're truly 30 second wonders as you suggest.

YOU are the one suggesting it by saying uncircs are so much more sensitive.

Sensitivity != finishing sooner. I have way more sensitivity after a little foreskin restoration and I last a lot longer. So my wife and I have longer sex and I enjoy it a lot more.

do you and your wife have sex more often since your foreskin restoration?

No, but we were already having sex at least once a day anyway. She doesn't get sore anymore either.

sore from what?

Sore from frequent sex.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

It would be interesting to poll European and Mexican men, as very few of them are cut. We'd see if they're truly 30 second wonders as you suggest.

YOU are the one suggesting it by saying uncircs are so much more sensitive.

Sensitivity != finishing sooner. I have way more sensitivity after a little foreskin restoration and I last a lot longer. So my wife and I have longer sex and I enjoy it a lot more.

do you and your wife have sex more often since your foreskin restoration?

No, but we were already having sex at least once a day anyway. She doesn't get sore anymore either.

sore from what?

Sore from frequent sex.

and now you make all the lube right?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

Until the reports of infection start pouring in from the uncirc folks. It's real I have lots of German relatives getting circed at 50 ain?t a pretty picture.

Personally, I'd take circumcision at 50 with tons of Vicodin vs. an infant circ with no anethesia and no foreskin throughout my life. Besides, just because some people have foreskin problems doesn't mean that everyone will.

why you persist in this ridiculousness is beyond me.

infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

now let's see you break out that propaganda site where an infant is crying during a circ.
what baby doesn't cry when it is held still for a bit?

same ****, different day for you EatSpam

You just can't believe that they circ babies with no anesthesia.... I'm sorry its so hard for you to accept that it happens and that such horrible doctors exist in our country.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

Until the reports of infection start pouring in from the uncirc folks. It's real I have lots of German relatives getting circed at 50 ain?t a pretty picture.

Personally, I'd take circumcision at 50 with tons of Vicodin vs. an infant circ with no anethesia and no foreskin throughout my life. Besides, just because some people have foreskin problems doesn't mean that everyone will.

why you persist in this ridiculousness is beyond me.

infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

now let's see you break out that propaganda site where an infant is crying during a circ.
what baby doesn't cry when it is held still for a bit?

same ****, different day for you EatSpam

You just can't believe that they circ babies with no anesthesia.... I'm sorry its so hard for you to accept that it happens and that such horrible doctors exist in our country.

how do you know it happens? have you witnessed it personally?

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

It would be interesting to poll European and Mexican men, as very few of them are cut. We'd see if they're truly 30 second wonders as you suggest.

YOU are the one suggesting it by saying uncircs are so much more sensitive.

Sensitivity != finishing sooner. I have way more sensitivity after a little foreskin restoration and I last a lot longer. So my wife and I have longer sex and I enjoy it a lot more.

I?m going to have to say Shens. Also have you heard that saying misery loves company? I have to wonder why you are so adamant about pushing this. Do you like the talk about mens wankers or does misery truly love company?

 

[OdiN]

404: Flame suit melting...

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

A better question is why is my son nude in a male locker room?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

that's fine as long as you don't continue to think you should make the choice for everyone.

Of course, I'm not legally able to make a choice for anyone, but I will continue lobbying my state reps to discontinue Medicaid funding for the procedure. I don't like my tax dollars contributing to that barbarism.

Funny, I don't like my tax dollars contributing to a certain war, but I have no recourse.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

1998 is only 8 years ago... and 58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

From what I understand, local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult. Do you have any evidence for how often locals are used?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

And from what I understand local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult.

my brother's infant son was given local for his circ.

 

[hjo3]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

And from what I understand local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult.

my brother's infant son was given local for his circ.

Any non-anecdotal, i.e. percentages?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

And from what I understand local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult.

my brother's infant son was given local for his circ.

So just because your little bro's poor little son was given local, does that mean that all babies are?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam
In our little nonscientific poll, more people will leave their kids intact than not.

So, to the people who want to circumcise their kids, what will you do if your son is made fun of in the locker room for being circ'd? 😉

have you heard of that happening in the U.S. ?

Anecdotes, especially in majority Hispanic communities. As the rates continue to drop, I think it'll become more common. Believe it or not, circ rates are trending to drop below 50% in the next few years.

that's fine as long as you don't continue to think you should make the choice for everyone.

Of course, I'm not legally able to make a choice for anyone, but I will continue lobbying my state reps to discontinue Medicaid funding for the procedure. I don't like my tax dollars contributing to that barbarism.

Funny, I don't like my tax dollars contributing to a certain war, but I have no recourse.

Me neither, and you're welcome to write your reps about that, too!

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

And from what I understand local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult.

my brother's infant son was given local for his circ.

Any non-anecdotal, i.e. percentages?

nah, i am just relating personal experience.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: hjo3

Originally posted by: moshquerade
infants are anesthetised at the site and there is no memory of the pain unlike a 50 year old.

Actually, anaesthesia is only used by 45% of the doctors who perform infant circumcision. Most of those who don't use it make that decision because neonatal anaesthesia tends to be dangerous.

EDIT: study link

that is a study from 1998 and i am talking local anesthesia not general anesthesia.

also, only 58% of the surveys were even returned. that is what their data was based on.
that's not good enough.

58% is still more than 1500 surveys; that's a pretty good base for a study.

And from what I understand local anaesthetics are rarely used because they cause a swelling that makes the surgery more difficult.

my brother's infant son was given local for his circ.

So just because your little bro's poor little son was given local, does that mean that all babies are?

did i say that?!?! 😕

and screw off calling circumcised people poor, tricked, stupid or whatever.
you talk about bullies. you sound just like one.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: HBalzer
Okay they say being uncircumcised makes sex more sensitive that means your son won?t last 30 seconds. I don?t know about any of you but my john Thomas is sensitive enough. I am willing to sacrifice some sensitivity for a longer run.

It would be interesting to poll European and Mexican men, as very few of them are cut. We'd see if they're truly 30 second wonders as you suggest.

YOU are the one suggesting it by saying uncircs are so much more sensitive.

Sensitivity != finishing sooner. I have way more sensitivity after a little foreskin restoration and I last a lot longer. So my wife and I have longer sex and I enjoy it a lot more.

I?m going to have to say Shens. Also have you heard that saying misery loves company? I have to wonder why you are so adamant about pushing this. Do you like the talk about mens wankers or does misery truly love company?

Everyone has to have a cause. My cause is the human rights of men to have a whole body. I was victimized as an infant along with most of my peers. I want to end that.

I'm in great company, too.... Google "intactivism"... I'm FAR from alone, plus, if you read through the posts, there are many people who agree with me.