• Circumcision
    662 replies, posted
I know one thing, if I ever have a boy, I'm NOT circumcising him. I will teach him how too clean what he has.
[QUOTE=Jookia;37081199]Shots medically help the children. It's still unknown if circumcision provides any benefits.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?_r=1[/url]
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;37081795][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html?_r=1[/url][/QUOTE] Interesting, but it lacks a source and they stopped the study before completion which makes me a little suspicious of the results.
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;37073359]Of all the examples you provided, you listed taking out vital/extremely integral organs. How is foreskin integral to any action? At all? The parents can do what they want with their kid; that is freedom. They can also choose to give them shots. What if they didn't give the baby a tetanus shot? He would have a greater chance of getting tetanus. What if they didn't circumcise the baby? He would have a greater chance of getting infections/spreading AIDs.[/QUOTE] Foreskin protects the glans, it protects the penis, it keeps the nerves alive, it helps penis grow longer, et cetera. And a tetanus shot doesn't give someone a permanent mutilation, it's just medicine for fuck's sake. That example was retarded. And no, parents can't do whatever they want with their children.
[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;37073359]Of all the examples you provided, you listed taking out vital/extremely integral organs. How is foreskin integral to any action? At all? The parents can do what they want with their kid; that is freedom. They can also choose to give them shots. What if they didn't give the baby a tetanus shot? He would have a greater chance of getting tetanus. What if they didn't circumcise the baby? He would have a greater chance of getting infections/spreading AIDs.[/QUOTE] The foreskin evolved to help keep the penis free from infection and to stop it from getting damaged, why would you want to remove something which is important to the penis? Most people don't realize that and just assume it's some useless flap of skin which has no function. Even if you think it's unimportant, it's still a piece of the child's body and they should decide what they want to do with it, even if there are no side effects from removing it. Any surgery or medical procedure that isn't beneficial to the child's life or well-being should not be performed without the child's consent, they can make their own mind up later.
Being circumcised hasn't caused me any issues, (born during an era where it was a common to prevent some of the possible complications caused by a foreskin). I don't think there is a reason it should be practiced but it's not a terrible outrageous thing. However it shouldn't be preformed unless necessary, in my opinion.
^^I agree with your circumspect and uncircumcised idea of leaving the circumcision to necessity.
I'm going to have to get a circumcision at some point due to a Phimotic ring on my penis. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputioplasty[/url]) I would not have to have this surgery if I had been circumcised as a child. I cherish the 22 years I've had with my foreskin and all the soapy baths and hot showers. I'm glad it is my choice, even though the problems I have are a direct result of owning a foreskin. I would not circumcise any of my future male children because body mutilation as a form of preventative medicine is not right.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;36993951]actually it hurts like, far, far more. Newborn babies are much more sensitive.[/QUOTE] except that they´re unconsious (didnt spell that right but im damn tired) when they do it, so they wont feel shit [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;37114646]I'm going to have to get a circumcision at some point due to a Phimotic ring on my penis. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preputioplasty[/url]) I would not have to have this surgery if I had been circumcised as a child. I cherish the 22 years I've had with my foreskin and all the soapy baths and hot showers. I'm glad it is my choice, even though the problems I have are a direct result of owning a foreskin. I would not circumcise any of my future male children because body mutilation as a form of preventative medicine is not right.[/QUOTE] Believe me, youll love your new dick. Hot showers and soapy baths are only outlawed for 1.5ish months
-snip-
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;37030994]Anyone mention yet that circumcision reduces the chance of spreading aids to your partner? [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/health/29hiv[/url]. link dead for me [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/health/13cnd-hiv.html[/url] new link[/QUOTE] Maybe not have sex with someone that has aids?
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;37124104]except that they´re unconsious (didnt spell that right but im damn tired) when they do it, so they wont feel shit [/QUOTE] [video=youtube;bXVFFI76ff0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0[/video] Yeah wow that baby sure is asleep. Look at him, all peaceful.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that circumcision reduces the likelihood of spreading Aids. Studies have been done that show it makes almost no difference, and anyway, why the fuck would it? Just think about it.
I only hate being circumcised due to discomfort when exercising. [sp]Dem briefs[/sp]
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37133973][video=youtube;bXVFFI76ff0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0[/video] Yeah wow that baby sure is asleep. Look at him, all peaceful.[/QUOTE] What nation is that performed in? In The Netherlands (and i'm sure all of [West] Europe as well) they knock em out. 1 nation =/= the whole world. [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Adam Giamboner;37180941]I only hate being circumcised due to discomfort when exercising. [sp]Dem briefs[/sp][/QUOTE] Unless you twist your dick, you should have no problems. I excercise and I have no discomfort whatsoever. [editline]11th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Flyingman356;37180864]There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that circumcision reduces the likelihood of spreading Aids. Studies have been done that show it makes almost no difference, and anyway, why the fuck would it? Just think about it.[/QUOTE] Because it doesn't.
had sex with my girlfriend for the first time last month, I'm uncut. She's been with circumsized guys before, and she didn't mind a bit. The topic of circumcision came up a couple of weeks later and she said if we had kids she would be against circumcising them. oh and I lasted an ~40 minutes the first couple of times and then about ~20 after a few more. Can't say I felt mega sensitive with a condom so for me that's not a disadvantage at all
I don't see what's wrong with circumcision. I've personally been cut, and have been since birth and so far life for my penis has been peachy. Some of the people in this thread have called it "mutilation" or compared it to cutting off another body part. The difference is that the foreskin doesn't serve any vital purpose, kind of like the appendix, which actually has a greater risk of causing negative effects than positive. Or in another FPer's comparison, two toes, which are vital to stability. The debate about health risks of getting cut vs. staying intact seems to kind of even out. Circumcision seems to be a preventative system that is simply useful not in preventing STIs/STDs, but rather conditions that can arise from not getting cut. That being said, it's still not very likely that anyone who has an intact penis is going to get these complications anyways. As of right now, if I were to have a son, I would probably push to have him circumcised after birth. Not that I am strongly biased one way or the other, I just don't see a reason not to. And before anyone pipes in about sex being less pleasurable, I can attest that I still feel plenty of pleasure having sex.
[QUOTE=Evilan;37210152]I don't see what's wrong with circumcision. I've personally been cut, and have been since birth and so far life for my penis has been peachy. Some of the people in this thread have called it "mutilation" or compared it to cutting off another body part. The difference is that the foreskin doesn't serve any vital purpose, kind of like the appendix, which actually has a greater risk of causing negative effects than positive. Or in another FPer's comparison, two toes, which are vital to stability. The debate about health risks of getting cut vs. staying intact seems to kind of even out. Circumcision seems to be a preventative system that is simply useful not in preventing STIs/STDs, but rather conditions that can arise from not getting cut. That being said, it's still not very likely that anyone who has an intact penis is going to get these complications anyways. As of right now, if I were to have a son, I would probably push to have him circumcised after birth. Not that I am strongly biased one way or the other, [B]I just don't see a reason not to[/B]. And before anyone pipes in about sex being less pleasurable, I can attest that I still feel plenty of pleasure having sex.[/QUOTE] Let's say that your son would actually be against it, the decision would already have been made and he had no choice. If you had not chosen to do it he could have done it later if he so wanted. And now some people might say that "He wouldn't do it when later in adulthood, hes too embarrased!" well, that only proves the point that even simple embarrasment can stop people from doing it which means it really isn't such a big problem washing your dong.
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;37124104]except that they´re unconsious (didnt spell that right but im damn tired) when they do it, so they wont feel shit[/QUOTE] That is completely false, in most cases the child will actually faint due to the pain.
[QUOTE=Evilan;37210152]As of right now, if I were to have a son, I would probably push to have him circumcised after birth. Not that I am strongly biased one way or the other, I just don't see a reason not to. And before anyone pipes in about sex being less pleasurable, I can attest that I still feel plenty of pleasure having sex.[/QUOTE] If you've never experienced sex with a foreskin you wouldn't know.
[QUOTE=Evilan;37210152]I don't see what's wrong with circumcision. I've personally been cut, and have been since birth and so far life for my penis has been peachy. Some of the people in this thread have called it "mutilation" or compared it to cutting off another body part. The difference is that the foreskin doesn't serve any vital purpose, kind of like the appendix, which actually has a greater risk of causing negative effects than positive. Or in another FPer's comparison, two toes, which are vital to stability. The debate about health risks of getting cut vs. staying intact seems to kind of even out. Circumcision seems to be a preventative system that is simply useful not in preventing STIs/STDs, but rather conditions that can arise from not getting cut. That being said, it's still not very likely that anyone who has an intact penis is going to get these complications anyways. As of right now, if I were to have a son, I would probably push to have him circumcised after birth. Not that I am strongly biased one way or the other, I just don't see a reason not to. And before anyone pipes in about sex being less pleasurable, I can attest that I still feel plenty of pleasure having sex.[/QUOTE] The reason not to is because it's fucking painful and there's no reason to do it.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;37248111]If you've never experienced sex with a foreskin you wouldn't know.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure we can all agree there isn't a significant difference. Anybody that tries to say otherwise is just lying to try and further their point. You can't physically remember anything from when you were younger than two years old, so the painful argument doesn't matter. It's literally going to be forgotten and cause no mental anguish or leave any permanent mark. [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] "I don't like what other people are doing so I'm going to try and make it illegal." If you can't see the point in it, that's fine, you can live ignorantly if you'd like. I'm just saying, if you're uncut OR cut, you don't really have a say in it because nothing is ever going to change.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;37249959]I'm pretty sure we can all agree there isn't a significant difference. Anybody that tries to say otherwise is just lying to try and further their point. You can't physically remember anything from when you were younger than two years old, so the painful argument doesn't matter. It's literally going to be forgotten and cause no mental anguish or leave any permanent mark.[/QUOTE] Whether you can remember or not is not the point, and whether or not you specifically mind it is not the point either. I'm sure you could physically harm a baby in other ways and it might not remember that in detail afterwards, but you wouldn't do it. The point is that the child is not able to give consent to this procedure, and the parents are not (or in places where they are, [I]should[/I] not) be able to decide whether or not their child needs it on such flimsy criteria as 'easier to clean' and 'will still be able to masturbate'. [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FFStudios;37249959]"I don't like what other people are doing so I'm going to try and make it illegal." If you can't see the point in it, that's fine, you can live ignorantly if you'd like. I'm just saying, if you're uncut OR cut, you don't really have a say in it because nothing is ever going to change.[/QUOTE] And this part in particular is especially nonsense, essentially the defeatist's argument: "It will never change! How I know this to be certain I have no idea, but it definitely will never change!" Yes, I'm sure that's why the issue of whether circumcision be illegal or not is an issue [I]almost everywhere[/I] on some level.
[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;37211005]That is completely false, in most cases the child will actually faint due to the pain.[/QUOTE] Only in a backwards nation like the USA. Here in The Netherlands we knock you out before the operation.
[QUOTE=Adam Giamboner;37180941]I only hate being circumcised due to discomfort when exercising. [sp]Dem briefs[/sp][/QUOTE] Doesn't bother me at all.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;37249959]I'm pretty sure we can all agree there isn't a significant difference. Anybody that tries to say otherwise is just lying to try and further their point. You can't physically remember anything from when you were younger than two years old, so the painful argument doesn't matter. It's literally going to be forgotten and cause no mental anguish or leave any permanent mark. [editline]15th August 2012[/editline] "I don't like what other people are doing so I'm going to try and make it illegal." If you can't see the point in it, that's fine, you can live ignorantly if you'd like. I'm just saying, if you're uncut OR cut, you don't really have a say in it because nothing is ever going to change.[/QUOTE] Just because they won't remember it later on doesn't mean that we have the right to perform such a heinous operation without them being knocked out.
By the logic that not remembering it makes it OK, I could hit you in the head with a baseball bat and castrate you and it'd be fine.
[QUOTE=supersnail11;37282170]By the logic that not remembering it makes it OK, I could hit you in the head with a baseball bat and castrate you and it'd be fine.[/QUOTE] That is a horribly ignorant comparison. If you hit him in the head with a baseball bat he could have severe brain damage and possible mental instability going forward. A newborn does not have a developed enough brain to maintain long term memories nor are they even able to remember feelings or sensations. It would be better to go down 'Leader of Me's' argument that the baby should be knocked out before the operation takes place. [editline]17th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Flyingman356;37248111]If you've never experienced sex with a foreskin you wouldn't know.[/QUOTE] If you've never experienced sex without a foreskin you wouldn't know.
I think if your parents decided to get you circumcised at younger age its better then because you wont remember the pain... You should show your child how to wash his dick but i think it should be left to the person when they are older.
Parents should have no permanent decisions in their child's life! I mean, why stop at circumcision? What if their kid doesn't like his name or gender? I vote for the imprisonment of all parents who name their children at birth! Its mutilation!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.