Circumcision....discuss?

[Queersetti]

I am also puzzled about this argument from the women who say they prefer cut men in sex etc

when the penis becomes erect the foreskin pulls back normally anyway -

and I thought sex was all about feelings , love , how you use it , foreplay , the person eyes - you know the whole deal - didnt think it would come down to the foreskin ?

I don't see that as any different from a man who says he prefers to have sex with a woman with big breasts.

 

[Gord]

I don't see that as any different from a man who says he prefers to have sex with a woman with big breasts.

but with breasts if that is your want - then you can at least choose from the fairly visual clues that will be available before you get to the bed part

wither a guy is cut or not is not going to be found out ..... well until fairly on in the procedure and by then I would have thought that it wont make much of a diffence either way

I just dont see what a cut/uncut penis has to do with sex , but I am a hetro guy so maybe I shouldnt ?

 

[zipman]

I think that we owe a big round of applause to our newest bestest buddy and big toe Sergeant Zipman.

LOL, that's high praise indeed Mr. Setti.


And I shall always speak out for the undervalued and ever imporant Big Toe until it is properly recognized by people everywhere!

 

[Queersetti]

but with breasts if that is your want - then you can at least choose from the fairly visual clues that will be available before you get to the bed part

wither a guy is cut or not is not going to be found out ..... well until fairly on in the procedure and by then I would have thought that it wont make much of a diffence either way

I just dont see what a cut/uncut penis has to do with sex , but I am a hetro guy so maybe I shouldnt ?

Well, not to be punning, but different strokes for different folks. It is an aesthetic choice, just like breast size or hair color might be for others.

 

[Gord]

Well, not to be punning, but different strokes for different folks. It is an aesthetic choice, just like breast size or hair color might be for others.

ok that is fair enough - if you or anyone prefers that as an aesthetic choice or as a choice in lovers ...., though I am sure it cant be high up on criteria for a life partner ...... I have seen a lot of singles ads from women and usually things like sense of humour, height , weight , complexion , ...you know

But I am curious as how early in your communication before you try and get this to this point , is it a first date sort of thing , or maybe before you get to the date - sort of a date breaker. Now sorry I am being a tad sarcastic.

But you must admit that aesthetic reasons should be no reasons to perform this operation to babies who have no say so ?

What happens to all those guys who grow up preffering to be un cut .

Na for me if you want it done for aesthetic reasons then make the decision when you are able to make it for yourself

 

[Guest]

Boy, you've gone from sad to worse in the rhetoric that you've chosen to use and your arguments have gone from poorly researched to absurd.

First off, I think the differences between western male and African female circumcision as they are practiced are so utterly pronounced that your comparison is laughable. One totally removes the entire sensory organ of the female while the other diminshes some sensitivity of the penis. Sorry, but you're horror and outrage seem rather misplaced to me.

As for the big toe, well it is indeed one of the most important toes when it comes to humans successfully balancing themselves effortlessly. Other than that glaring falsehood it was such a ludicrous argument that I won't even bother addressing it.

There are cleanliness and health reasons (like cancer or spread of disease) that are quite valid and can be severely minimized through a simple medical procedure that heals in days and causes no lasting trauma.

Facts first.
Post second.

Patronizing as always, I see.

You're not doing a very good job of reading my posts. I had said the LITTLE TOE, and I had already pointed out (in the same post) that teh difference between male and female circumcision is that circumsized men can still feel plenty of sexual pleasure whereas circumsized women feel little or sometimes no pleasure during sex.

Before you criticize my posts it would be a good idea if you read them a little more carefully.

I'm glad you mentioned female circumcision. I tend to view male circumcision with the same horror that I view female circumcision. The only difference is that male circumcision (unless it goes horribly awry) still allows men to feel a lot of pleasure during sex, whereas female circumcision reduces or even make it impossible for women to feel pleasure during sex. So I suppose in terms of the aftermath, male circumcision isn't as grave. But I still think it's sad to remove parts of a person without the person being able to say anything about it for himself. I also find it interesting how so many Americans insist it is more hygienic to be circumsized, yet the majority of countries do not believe that to be true and do not consider it as a routine medical procedure (rather, they see it as a religious rite).

I could just as easily argue that humans no longer need their little toe, and that we should chop it off during infancy in order to prevent it from getting blisters, or infected, or broken, etc in the future. I could say that since it doesn't seem to serve any function in terms of balance and we don't need it for grasping that we should just get rid of it. And hey, why bother to use any painkillers because infants can't talk, so obviously they don't experience pain
But somehow I think people would find that sort of reasoning to be barbaric and argue that we ought to keep our little toes. And yet... we use the same reasoning to promote foreskin removal. I swear that the belief in foreskin removal for hygienic purposes is a *cultural belief*.

I'm glad you made the decision not to mutilate your son. And I'm sure, as you said, he's quite happy and healthy--just like the majority of uncircumsized men in the rest of the world.

 

[Guest]

I think that we owe a big round of applause to our newest bestest buddy and big toe Sergeant Zipman.

Unless you notice that I said the LITTLE toe. I don't know where he's getting this big toe stuff from.

 

[Queersetti]

ok that is fair enough - if you or anyone prefers that as an aesthetic choice or as a choice in lovers ...., though I am sure it cant be high up on criteria for a life partner ...... I have seen a lot of singles ads from women and usually things like sense of humour, height , weight , complexion , ...you know

But I am curious as how early in your communication before you try and get this to this point , is it a first date sort of thing , or maybe before you get to the date - sort of a date breaker. Now sorry I am being a tad sarcastic.

But you must admit that aesthetic reasons should be no reasons to perform this operation to babies who have no say so ?

What happens to all those guys who grow up preffering to be un cut .

Na for me if you want it done for aesthetic reasons then make the decision when you are able to make it for yourself

Well, I personally haven't weighed in on the issue myself, I've just been kibitzing on this thread. I was not advocating that circumcision be performed for aesthetic reasons, just pointing out that some people had aesthetic preferences.

Your point is a good one, however, if it is merely an aesthetic choice, then it ought to be up to the person themselves to choose. Of course, the unending argument is over whether or not it is more than an aesthetic choice.

 

[Queersetti]

Unless you notice that I said the LITTLE toe. I don't know where he's getting this big toe stuff from.

Sorry, but off the top of my head, I've got no movie references for little toes.

 

[Guest]

There are cleanliness and health reasons (like cancer or spread of disease) that are quite valid and can be severely minimized through a simple medical procedure that heals in days and causes no lasting trauma.

Facts first.
Post second.

Removing the foreskin does NOT reduce one's chances of getting cancer. And if anything, circumcision removes a protective part from the penis. As for the spread of disease, I don't think that a circumsized guy is at any lower risk of getting disease than an uncircimsized one.

 

[TamedTiger]

Seems to me that if it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be. Nature doesn't make mistakes like that.

If anyone would like to see photos as well as a video of the procedure done on a newborn click here

 

[zipman]

Patronizing as always, I see.

You're not doing a very good job of reading my posts. I had said the LITTLE TOE, and I had already pointed out (in the same post) that teh difference between male and female circumcision is that circumsized men can still feel plenty of sexual pleasure whereas circumsized women feel little or sometimes no pleasure during sex.

Before you criticize my posts it would be a good idea if you read them a little more carefully.

Some posts really just bring that out in me as yours did.

Why didn't you bold the part of your post where you said "I tend to view male circumcision with the same horror that I view female circumcision"? That was what I was commenting on. I guess I view removing the entire clitoris to prevent female pleasure with a lot more horror than you do if you say that you view them "the same."

I do admit that you are absolutely correct that you said "little toe" and not "big toe." Of course, my mistake doesn't change the fact that the little toe is ALSO one of the key elements of support of the human foot and your statement is still just as ridiculous!

 

[TumbledLove]

You seem to need mental help to get over it if you are THIS focused on having lost your foreskin. JMHO.

Nah, I'm just gonna wait it out until I completely snap and go on a murderous rampage. Then I'll blame it on my mutilation, and it'll get some news coverage, and raise more awareness at how harmful it is.

"Man blames circumcision on brutal killings." (original)

"Man blames circumcision for brutal killings." (edited for the anal types who never make mistakes )

yep, that story will be about me. The doctors will be first.

 

[Queersetti]

Nah, I'm just gonna wait it out until I completely snap and go on a murderous rampage. Then I'll blame it on my mutilation, and it'll get some news coverage, and raise more awareness at how harmful it is.

"Man blames circumcision on brutal killings."

yep, that story will be about me. The doctors will be first.

Shouldn't that be "Man blames brutal killings on circumcision"?

I am starting to wonder which head they snipped from.

 

[zipman]

Removing the foreskin does NOT reduce one's chances of getting cancer. And if anything, circumcision removes a protective part from the penis. As for the spread of disease, I don't think that a circumsized guy is at any lower risk of getting disease than an uncircimsized one.

Okay, since you are determined to stick to your ignorance and provide misinformation, let me show you.


CANCER OF THE PENIS
Incidence

In 5 major series in the USA, starting in 1932 [326], not one man with invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatally [177], i.e., this disease is almost completely confined to uncircumcised men. In fact penile cancer is so rare in a man who has been circumcised in infancy, that when it does occur it can even be the subject of a published case report [143]. The finite residual risk appears to be greater in those circumcised after the newborn period, but is still less than in the uncircimcised [177, 259, 260].

Lifetime risk in the total population of circumcised men is only 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 12,000,000 [316, 317]. In a study of 213 cases in California only 2 of 89 men with invasive penile cancer were circumcised in infancy, so that uncircumcised men were stated to have 22 times the risk [259, 260]. Of 118 with the localized, and thus more easily curable, variety of penile cancer, namely carcinoma in situ (which is not lethal), only 16 had been circumcised as newborns, i.e., incidence was 3-fold higher in the uncircumcised [177, 259, 260].

http://www.circinfo.net/#cancer

There is also a lot of other health risks which that site discusses which you insist is not the case either.
~~~~

Or we could take a look at the AMA's official recommendations on it.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the 1999 AMA Interim Meeting.

1. The AMA encourages training programs for pediatricians, obstetricians, and family physicians to incorporate information on the use of local pain control techniques for neonatal circumcision.

2. The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

3. The AMA urges that as part of the informed consent discussion, the risks and benefits of pain control techniques for circumcision be thoroughly discussed to aid parents in making their decisions.

~~~~~~~~

You know, I usually don't get pissed off when people present things that are factually inaccurate, but I damn well do when it involves medical facts. Take your agenda, your ignorance and your glaring medical knowledge elsewhere.

Let a child's parents make the decision after actually reviewing the medical pros and cons of the procedure as the AMA suggests. Either that or maybe you can ask REDWAVE to call for a National Strike to boycott circumcision!

 

[Guest]

Some posts really just bring that out in me as yours did.

Why didn't you bold the part of your post where you said "I tend to view male circumcision with the same horror that I view female circumcision"? That was what I was commenting on. I guess I view removing the entire clitoris to prevent female pleasure with a lot more horror than you do if you say that you view them "the same."

I do admit that you are absolutely correct that you said "little toe" and not "big toe." Of course, my mistake doesn't change the fact that the little toe is ALSO one of the key elements of support of the human foot and your statement is still just as ridiculous!

Oh, so now I'm supposed to bold things just to make sure you read them a certain way?

If you happened to continue reading the part where I explain why the aftermath is not as bad with a male circumcision as it is with a female circumcision you would arrive at the part where I explain why I nonetheless find it to be a horrifying practice.

You better consult with your physical anthropologists, as the little toe is NOT necessary for balance or support.

 

[TumbledLove]

well, sure. If you remove something, then it's not gonna get cancer.

Should we start cutting out a baby's prostate, so they won't get prostate cancer later in life?

 

[Weevil]

well, sure. If you remove something, then it's not gonna get cancer.

Should we start cutting out a baby's prostate, so they won't get prostate cancer later in life?

Uh, Professor, circumcision doesn't mean they cut the thing off, they just trim it a little.

 

[zipman]

Oh, so now I'm supposed to bold things just to make sure you read them a certain way?

If you happened to continue reading the part where I explain why the aftermath is not as bad with a male circumcision as it is with a female circumcision you would arrive at the part where I explain why I nonetheless find it to be a horrifying practice.

You better consult with your physical anthropologists, as the little toe is NOT necessary for balance or support.

When you say one is a little more grave than the other than you totally minimize the horror of female circumcision as opposed to the medically preventative technique of male circumcision.

You wrote the words, own them!

As for the little toe, well, here you go, again!

"The foot rests on three points of support; posteriorly (at the back) on the calcaneus (heel) and in front, on the heads of the first and fifth metatarsal bones (big toe and little toe metatarsals)."

That paragraph is under the heading "Foot Physiology 101" and is right next to picture of the bones ofthe foot!

http://www.ar.co.za/articles/shoes.html

~~~~~~~~~

Want to try again?

 

[Angel]

Okay, since you are determined to stick to your ignorance and provide misinformation, let me show you.

You do realize that for every medically reliable article that can be found in favor of your position, there is one for the opposite that is just as medically reliable.

We all but proved that last time this was debated - not to mention that the benefits and risks of each choice pretty much balanced each other to the point that it all just has to come down to what the parents prefer - and which risks/benefits they feel are most important to them.

 

[reddcutie]

cleanliness is a matter of choice

uncut cocks are only unpleasant if children arent taught proper hygiene..remember, this was a custom instituted by the jewish nation to set them apart from gentiles...to my knowledge even Jehovah said nothing about hygiene. In europe and other countries it is much more common for men to have their forskin intact anyway...americans seem to obsess on it more..

 

[Guest]

Uh, Professor, circumcision doesn't mean they cut the thing off, they just trim it a little.

I think he/she probably knows that. But you ARE cutting off the skin... hence, removing it. And the point is that anything which is removed from teh body would of course, reduce ones risk of cancer in the sense that you would have less body parts to become cancerous.

 

[reddcutie]

Cancer?

oh brother...its a matter of taste...i dont believe for one moment that parents have a sons forskin cut away to reduce cancer....after all, ANYTHING you cut out of the body will be assured to never become cancerous...but i never see people getting carried away..we are talking about societiel norms and cosmetic preferences here--period

 

[Guest]

When you say one is a little more grave than the other than you totally minimize the horror of female circumcision as opposed to the medically preventative technique of male circumcision.

You wrote the words, own them!

As for the little toe, well, here you go, again!

"The foot rests on three points of support; posteriorly (at the back) on the calcaneus (heel) and in front, on the heads of the first and fifth metatarsal bones (big toe and little toe metatarsals)."

That paragraph is under the heading "Foot Physiology 101" and is right next to picture of the bones ofthe foot!

http://www.ar.co.za/articles/shoes.html

~~~~~~~~~

Want to try again?

You still don't get it. I'm NOT minimizing the horror of female circumcision whatsoever. I am, in fact, stating that I am just as horrified about male circumcision. Just because you don't find male circumcision to be horrifying doesn't mean that I don't find it horrifying.

Ask any physical anthropologist (they study human anatomy) and they will tell you that the little toe no longer serves a function in modern humans. It is, in fact, a vestige. That is why it is smaller than the other toes. And as we no longer need it it will continue to become smaller in successive generations.

Hey, you don't really need hair on your head, so why don't we remove all of it? I mean, it's more hygienic that way, 'cause you can get lice if you have hair. Clearly there are strong medical reasons for inhibiting your hair follicles.

 

[Weevil]

I think he/she probably knows that. But you ARE cutting off the skin... hence, removing it. And the point is that anything which is removed from teh body would of course, reduce ones risk of cancer in the sense that you would have less body parts to become cancerous.

Which is like saying fat people are more likely to get cancer than skinny people. You're not coming off as the most scientifically informed person.