This may be a repost, but why are people still circumcized?

[KEV1N]

Having a discussion with my friend. Feel free to opine.

 

[Danman]

Cause of sanitary reasons. That's all I know of.

 

[Scouzer]

I think the chicks like cirumsized better also.

 

[Jeff7]

Religious beliefs, or medical problems. Yeah, might be more than you want, but, some skin down there stopped growing when I was little, so it had to come off.
Otherwise, I really know of no reason to do so; it's supposed to be a good thing to have during sex too - there's a LOT of nerves in there, plus it can help with "lubrication."

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Scouzer
I think the chicks like cirumsized better also.

I've heard that's not true - that uncircumcized is better. The extra skin allows for...freer movement.

 

[localfinesse]

It looks a lot better. I am soooo glad that I am

 

[tcsenter]

Feel free to read the four pages of discussion already had about this a few months ago.

Why Was I Circumcised?

 

[Mrfrog840]

I rememeber this discussion. Some of the reasons that they do it is that it minimizes the risk of cervical cancer for women. Im not circumsized. I mean I Questions my parents decision but its not like i cuss them out"why didnt you....." I mean sure you will almost never see a "pr0n" with a guys uncircumsized penis on it because they will say "ewww. It looks like an elephants penis" Great. It wasnt my fault. Parents just didnt want to have it done on me. Sure i would probably stand out in a naked crowd of guys. So? Its not what you have. Its how you use it.

 

[chiwawa626]

Originally posted by: cashman
Cause of sanitary reasons. That's all I know of.

Like as in people dont clean??? Thats no excuse...

 

[bleeb]

Just Do It!

 

[Lucky]

I am very happy i was cut and would circumsize my son if I have one.

 

[Scouzer]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I am very happy i was cut and would circumsize my son if I have one.

You make it sound like you'd do it yourself.

 

[AT]

Originally posted by: chiwawa626

Originally posted by: cashman
Cause of sanitary reasons. That's all I know of.

Like as in people dont clean??? Thats no excuse...

I dont know if he was refering to history of it but from what I have heard sanitary reasons were the reason they started circumsizing and then it became a tradition in some religions. If someone knows why christians in the US do it much more than christians in Europe I'd like to know.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Scouzer

Originally posted by: Lucky
I am very happy i was cut and would circumsize my son if I have one.

You make it sound like you'd do it yourself.

:Q No way, let the doctor do it.

 

[Mrfrog840]

Circumcision became routine in the United States around the turn of the 19th century. The powers that be thought that, with a smaller foreskin, and therefore less nerves in the penis, it would make masturbation less enjoyable, and therefore, hopefully reduce people's desire to do it. This came from a puritanical beleif that masturbation was giving in to lust, and therefore evil. It stayed a routine practice for over 50 years because, well, it was normal. Everyone got thier kids circumcised cause everyone else got thier kids circumcised.

Lately, there's been a trend toward not circumcising boys in the USA. People have realized that the health benefits of it are slim to none, and they thought they might like to give thier sons the choice as to whether or not they want parts of thier penis removed.

 

[AT]

Originally posted by: Mrfrog840
Circumcision became routine in the United States around the turn of the 19th century. The powers that be thought that, with a smaller foreskin, and therefore less nerves in the penis, it would make masturbation less enjoyable, and therefore, hopefully reduce people's desire to do it. This came from a puritanical beleif that masturbation was giving in to lust, and therefore evil. It stayed a routine practice for over 50 years because, well, it was normal.

Thanks for explanation. See how effective it was though.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: KEV1N
Having a discussion with my friend. Feel free to opine.

Your friend, or your little "friend?" :Q

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

It really depends on the person i guess. I never had much foreskin to begin with so my parents never circumsized me. I think it would actually look worse if i did get a circumcision. Anyways.... this topic is kinda grossing me out but my bro had it done because my dad (who is a doctor) thought he needed it and i think it looks kinda gross if you ask me.

 

[chiwawa626]

Well think of it this way...nature and thousands of years of evolution wanted it uncircumsized so mabey theres a reason behind it or mabey we should just leave it as it comes. Personaly i am uncut, and dont really see any side effects nor sanitary issues (im only 16 though and not sexualy active.)

 

[tcsenter]

Anything else you would like to comment on circumcision?

haha, sorry, I posted the right message into the wrong thread. That's what I get for having 2+ thread windows open at once.

 

[AT]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I?m not important. My point is that capitalism is a catastrophe because it manages scarcity on the basis of perceived value. Wonderful, wonderful.

ALL VALUE IS 'PERCEIVED', so this isn't any defining characteristic of capitalism. No matter what you might replace it with, the same could be said of it just as well.

Wholistic value, as you've called it, occupies an expansive grey area where nothing is easily or objectively defined nor would there be any consensus of views unless you deliberately 'engineered' your 'panel' to all be like-minded.

For example, how do you place a 'value' on a forest? What criteria will we be limited to? Is the aesthetic value of a forest going to be included? How the hell do you calculate aesthetic value? Will personal value be included? How the hell do you calculate the personal satisfication someone receives from a forest?

How would the necessity of housing affect this valuation of a forest, from which trees may be cut to build homes? Its nice when you have a home, and so you can say "stop cutting all the trees down, I already have a home!" What about those who don't?

I could go on...

Anything else you would like to comment on circumcision?

 

[Mrfrog840]

Hey i just found out a comforting fact!
over 80% of the world's men are intact!
w00h00!

 

[tcsenter]

Circumcision became routine in the United States around the turn of the 19th century. The powers that be thought that, with a smaller foreskin, and therefore less nerves in the penis, it would make masturbation less enjoyable, and therefore, hopefully reduce people's desire to do it. This came from a puritanical beleif that masturbation was giving in to lust, and therefore evil. It stayed a routine practice for over 50 years because, well, it was normal. Everyone got thier kids circumcised cause everyone else got thier kids circumcised.

Actually, this is a fraud put out by the anti-circ advocacy groups. See the thread I linked to where the circumcision horse was thoroughly whipped to death several months ago.

The anti-circ zealots rely upon a bit of misrepresentation to support their historical revisionism; the contributions of one Dr. Kellogg of the famed Kellogg's Corn Flakes, who was a religious nut and a quack physician. Dr. Kellogg wrote that circumcision would prevent masturbation, although there is Z-E-R-O evidence this was ever adopted by the medical establishment in the 19th, or at any time for that matter.

Dr. Kellogg was NOT any sort of respected physician nor is he credited with making ANY contributions to the medical establishment in his day. As I said, he was a doctor who was also a religious zealot, who believed that a 'beneficial' consequence of circumcision would be the prevention of masturbation, but even Dr. Kellogg did NOT advocate circumcision solely for this purpose. He viewed it as more of a 'bonus' to circumcision.

At no time did the medical establishment in the United States ever adopt or accept as a reason for circumcision to be anything other than health and personal religious reasons (that it was 'Biblical', not that it would prevent masturbation).

And the claim that circumcision was not routine in the United States until the 19th century is extrapolated from the fact that records pertaining to circumcision in newborns were not kept until the 19th century. By this logic, it could also be said that "childbirth did not become routine in the United States until the 19th century" since the primary place to 'register' the birth of a child until the 19th century was the family Bible.

Lately, there's been a trend toward not circumcising boys in the USA. People have realized that the health benefits of it are slim to none, and they thought they might like to give thier sons the choice as to whether or not they want parts of thier penis removed.

There is no such 'trend' away from circumcision. It is as common today as it was 20 years ago. There has been a downward trend away from circumcision in certain ethnic groups, but a compensatory increase in circumcision among others.

The near consensus among the medical community that the merits of circumcision out-weigh any fickle emotional attachment that one may have with a piece of skin is only becoming stronger as more evidence substantiates the health risks of remaining 'uncut'.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Circumcision became routine in the United States around the turn of the 19th century. The powers that be thought that, with a smaller foreskin, and therefore less nerves in the penis, it would make masturbation less enjoyable, and therefore, hopefully reduce people's desire to do it. This came from a puritanical beleif that masturbation was giving in to lust, and therefore evil. It stayed a routine practice for over 50 years because, well, it was normal. Everyone got thier kids circumcised cause everyone else got thier kids circumcised.

Actually, this is a fraud put out by the anti-circ advocacy groups. See the thread I linked to where the circumcision horse was thoroughly whipped to death several months ago.

The anti-circ zealots rely upon a bit of misrepresentation to support their historical revisionism; the contributions of one Dr. Kellogg of the famed Kellogg's Corn Flakes, who was a religious nut and a quack physician. Dr. Kellogg wrote that circumcision would prevent masturbation, although there is Z-E-R-O evidence this was ever adopted by the medical establishment in the 19th, or at any time for that matter.

Dr. Kellogg was NOT any sort of respected physician nor is he credited with making ANY contributions to the medical establishment in his day. As I said, he was a doctor who was also a religious zealot, who believed that a 'beneficial' consequence of circumcision would be the prevention of masturbation, but even Dr. Kellogg did NOT advocate circumcision solely for this purpose. He viewed it as more of a 'bonus' to circumcision.

At no time did the medical establishment in the United States ever adopt or accept as a reason for circumcision to be anything other than health and personal religious reasons (that it was 'Biblical', not that it would prevent masturbation).

And the claim that circumcision was not routine in the United States until the 19th century is extrapolated from the fact that records pertaining to circumcision in newborns were not kept until the 19th century. By this logic, it could also be said that "childbirth did not become routine in the United States until the 19th century" since the primary place to 'register' the birth of a child until the 19th century was the family Bible.

Lately, there's been a trend toward not circumcising boys in the USA. People have realized that the health benefits of it are slim to none, and they thought they might like to give thier sons the choice as to whether or not they want parts of thier penis removed.

There is no such 'trend' away from circumcision. It is as common today as it was 20 years ago. There has been a downward trend away from circumcision in certain ethnic groups, but a compensatory increase in circumcision among others.

The near consensus among the medical community that the merits of circumcision out-weigh any fickle emotional attachment that one may have with a piece of skin is only becoming stronger as more evidence substantiates the health risks of remaining 'uncut'.

I wonder where u take that consensus from. I dont know a single advantage of circumcision except that if u are a filthy boy u might not be quite as filthy down there as the filthy not circumsized person.
Anyway there is consensus that there are alot of nerve endings in the foreskin which let u feel less when cut away (naturally). Maybe its that u need your consensus of circumsision is good to convince yourself that it was good to loose some sensation.
Also I have never heard of ppl getting injured or loosing their penis due to leaving it like nature wanted it to be. On the other hand I have heard of ppl getting injured or even loosing their penis due to complications/mistakes during circumcision.

Anyway I wonder why ppl argue so much how good circumsision is - prolly they need to convince themselves that nature must have done wrong there, hence the need to cut it off. Kinda sounds like what those barbaric ppl say that circumsize women in islamic countries. When religion is in the game - arguments turn to ideology pretty fast -> like the medical consensus - its ideology

 

[tcsenter]

I wonder where u take that consensus from. I dont know a single advantage of circumcision except that if u are a filthy boy u might not be quite as filthy down there as the filthy not circumsized person.

The health risks are generally rather minor and treatable, including a higher incidence of STDs, inflammation, phimosis, and the occassional repair of a torn frenula. But new studies have given greater confidence in the link between cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumsized males, due to the fact that the foreskin of an uncircumcized male is a perfect place to harbor Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), among other microbes, which cause cervical cancer in women. See:

Circumcision Lowers Risk of Cervical Cancer

Further, this isn't about being, as you describe, a 'filthy' person. I guarantee that if you and I were to take a shower (not together), and we were both to wash our things as vigorously as we should, and within six hours of taking a shower, if we were to retract your foreskin and perform a bacterial swab around your glans, then culture the swab, your colony count would be through the roof whereas mine would still be rather low. This has been proven over and over again, the uncircumcised penis provides a perfect environment for bacteria and other microbes to thrive.

Anyway there is consensus that there are alot of nerve endings in the foreskin which let u feel less when cut away (naturally)

There are no more 'nerve endings' in the foreskin covering the glans than in the skin which covers the rest of the penis. Sorry, that's a myth and you won't find a single histological slide of the foreskin to back your claim.

The glans is the most erogenous portion of the penis, not the skin covering the penis. The foreskin sliding over the glans during sex may account for increased stimulation of the glans, but no there are no more nerve endings in the foreskin.