[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32435984]No need to get so defensive. Go to bed, wake up, do whatever, then decide to just find some sources real fast. It really isn't that big of a deal. But during all of this just realize you're still losing ;)[/QUOTE]
so, you debate to win. that's not debating, that's arguing.
here are some sources that verify my claims:
[url]http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan/[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/[/url]
kaaaaaay, goodniiiiiiiiiight~~~~
The answer for this seems obvious, even if there is some evidence that cutting off the foreskin would help a little bit, you realize you are causing quite a bit of trauma and suffering(assuming no anastetics were used), to a fucking baby Which is obviously horrible, we don't go cutting out everything else on the human body that reduces risks do we? Do we cut out the appendix at birth rid the chance of Appendicitis? No.. There are plenty others i could name also. It is just a stupid fucked up tradition that shouldn't be entertained anymore. Nothing wrong with surgery on the penis if there is a later medical condition though.
[QUOTE=Contag;32435196]But what about braces or teeth whitening?[/QUOTE]
There's no need for braces unless your teeth are causing medical problems. Besides, by the time kids get braces they're old enough to decide for themselves if they want them or not.
As for teeth whitening, it doesn't remove or alter a body part so you can't compare it.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32434983]That harmless smegma is the leading cause for infections in the penis. You never hear about people wishing they weren't circumcised because of infections. Its always the other way around.[/QUOTE]
That's the fault of lack of cleanliness, not the foreskin itself. You realize I'm able to wash my dick, right?
I was circumcised and I really wish I wasn't. Circumcision is ridiculous.
The argument that it makes you last longer in bed is retarded. You are lasting longer because you are feeling less pleasure.
I remember the first time I had sex, it took me like a half hour to 'get it in' cause she was tight and the skin on my dick was so tight it hurt like hell.
It's an archaic practice that serves to purpose in the modern world.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32436126]There's no need for braces unless your teeth are causing medical problems. Besides, by the time kids get braces they're old enough to decide for themselves if they want them or not.
As for teeth whitening, it doesn't remove or alter a body part so you can't compare it.
[editline]22nd September 2011[/editline]
That's the fault of lack of cleanliness, not the foreskin itself. You realize I'm able to wash my dick, right?[/QUOTE]
well teeth whiting is changing the color of the teeth and tattooing changing the color of the skin so
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436060]so, you debate to win. that's not debating, that's arguing.
here are some sources that verify my claims:
[url]http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan/[/url]
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/[/url]
kaaaaaay, goodniiiiiiiiiight~~~~[/QUOTE]
The first source has no scientific experimentation and results and only discusses the recommendations of a certain surgical group. The second source does nothing but discuss the sensitive areas of the genital organs of both males and females. The third source contains no fact at all and is an opinion piece of the ethics of circumcision. And finally the fourth source does actually provide credible information to the fact that there is desensitization in the penis after circumcision, but this also provides credibility to the fact that those who are circumcised can last longer in bed.
You have done nothing to back up the other 'cons' you listed earlier.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32436324]The first source has no scientific experimentation and results and only discusses the recommendations of a certain surgical group. The second source does nothing but discuss the sensitive areas of the genital organs of both males and females. The third source contains no fact at all and is an opinion piece of the ethics of circumcision. And finally the fourth source does actually provide credible information to the fact that there is desensitization in the penis after circumcision, but this also provides credibility to the fact that those who are circumcised can last longer in bed.
You have done nothing to back up the other 'cons' you listed earlier.[/QUOTE]
so you still support tying a baby down and chopping part of it's penis off?
to be brutally honest, i pulled those sources out of my ass and it took about as much effort as going to cirp.org and clicking on a few random links to get you to shut up for a second and listen to what i have to say.
what you are doing right now is nitpicking on something i've already said in this thread that i really am not trying to totally focus on.
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436377]so you still support tying a baby down and chopping part of it's penis off?[/QUOTE]no, we're saying you're really bad at debate
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436377]so you still support tying a baby down and chopping part of it's penis off?
to be brutally honest, i pulled those sources out of my ass and it took about as much effort as going to cirp.org and clicking on a few random links to get you to shut up for a second and listen to what i have to say.
what you are doing right now is nitpicking on something i've already said in this thread that i really am not trying to totally focus on.[/QUOTE]
Don't get all huffy and try posting fallacies just because you can't debate correctly
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32436406]Don't get all huffy and try posting fallacies just because you can't debate correctly[/QUOTE]
exactly what fallacy am i making and what can i do to fix it
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436407]exactly what fallacy am i making and what can i do to fix it[/QUOTE]
Trying to bring the subject away from the matter at hand. Also, we aren't nitpicking, we're trying to counter the major points you've been making.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32436450]Trying to bring the subject away from the matter at hand. Also, we aren't nitpicking, we're trying to counter the major points you've been making.[/QUOTE]
i'm going to go back and find every con i posted and post a source that backs up my posts. this time i'll be serious, i promise!
1. desensitization of the glans
[url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07072_1.x/full[/url]
2. circumcision scar
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_scar[/url]
3. loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/[/url]
4. loss of the entire frenulum
should be common knowledge that the frenulum gets cut off from circumcision.
5. infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin
[sp]J Epidemiol Biostat 2001;6(2):211-8 (ISSN: 1359-5229)
McCredie M; Staples M; Johnson W; English DR; Giles GG
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin Medical School, University of Otago, New Zealand.
BACKGROUND: This study was devised to determine the prevalence of urinary symptoms among men living in the Australian cities of Melbourne, Sydney or Perth, and to identify factors associated with the presence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms.
METHODS: The study comprised a population-based sample of 1,216 men, aged 40-69 years, whose names were obtained through electoral rolls and who participated as controls in a case-control study of risk factors for prostate cancer. As part of a structured face-to-face interview, the men completed the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Men with moderate (IPSS = 8-19) or severe (IPSS > or = 20) urinary symptoms were compared with those with mild or no symptoms (IPSS < 8) using unconditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: The age-specific prevalence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms (IPSS > or = 8) in men aged 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 years was 16%, 23% and 28%, respectively. Compared with men with no or mild urinary symptoms (IPSS < 8), men with moderate-to-severe symptoms were more likely to report not currently living as married [odds ratio (OR) = 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0] and being circumcised (OR = 1.5; 95% Cl 1.2-2.0). The increased likelihood associated with drinking an average of > 60g per day of alcohol in the 2 years before interview was of marginal statistical significance (OR = 1.6; 1.0-2.6). There were no significant differences between men with IPSS > or = 8 and those with IPSS < 8 with respect to body mass index, education level, having had a vasectomy, or cigarette smoking.
CONCLUSION: Among Australian men, being circumcised, or not currently living as married, were associated with increased prevalence of urinary symptoms.[/sp]
damage of testicles and/or epididymis is due to epididymitis or orchitis which populates in the urethra
6. dirt can get into your urethra much easier
should be common knowledge, you don't have a foreskin to shield your urethra from any sand or dirt that may get into your urethra
and i think thats it. if you think any of my sources are wrong in any way, feel free to say so. i'm not saying one doctor's idea is always right.
so now i want a few sources from you. give me a source to your claim that smegma is the leading cause of infections of the penis, and give me a source to your claim that desensitization of the penis is blown way out of proportion. i'm sorry that i said that the glans got desensitized from circumcision, i really meant the penis got desensitized from the loss of a foreskin, but its too late to edit my post.
How exactly would one get dirt inside their penis?
[QUOTE=slayer20;32436757]How exactly would one get dirt inside their penis?[/QUOTE]dick in mound of dirt
trust me I'm an expert in dick dirt.
IMO saying "foreskin should be removed because it could get infected" is like saying "I should get my arm amputated because it might get tetanus"
[QUOTE=slayer20;32436757]How exactly would one get dirt inside their penis?[/QUOTE]
well, back in the days when man was uncivilized and ran around with nothing but a loincloth on, you could very well have gotten dirt, sand or mud in your urethra (if you were circumcised in those times, of course) which would hurt like a bitch and also block your urethra. foreskin helped protect a lot of the glans and most of the urethra, so it would be pretty hard to get anything in your urethra. not saying that its impossible to get something in your urethra if you are intact, but it would be much harder.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;32436778]dick in mound of dirt
trust me I'm an expert in dick dirt.[/QUOTE]
I'll believe you on that one.
Also, I decided to look up what a circumcised vagina looked like...I really couldn't find any pictures besides a nice high-res one. I have to say...it looked weird.
But then I looked through google images for uncircumcised vaginas and oh my god there is some great horrors out there.
Am I allowed to post a link to the circumcised vagina I was looking at?
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436678]i'm going to go back and find every con i posted and post a source that backs up my posts. this time i'll be serious, i promise!
1. desensitization of the glans
[url]http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07072_1.x/full[/url]
2. circumcision scar
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_scar[/url]
3. loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin
[url]http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/[/url]
4. loss of the entire frenulum
should be common knowledge that the frenulum gets cut off from circumcision.
5. infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin
[sp]J Epidemiol Biostat 2001;6(2):211-8 (ISSN: 1359-5229)
McCredie M; Staples M; Johnson W; English DR; Giles GG
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin Medical School, University of Otago, New Zealand.
BACKGROUND: This study was devised to determine the prevalence of urinary symptoms among men living in the Australian cities of Melbourne, Sydney or Perth, and to identify factors associated with the presence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms.
METHODS: The study comprised a population-based sample of 1,216 men, aged 40-69 years, whose names were obtained through electoral rolls and who participated as controls in a case-control study of risk factors for prostate cancer. As part of a structured face-to-face interview, the men completed the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Men with moderate (IPSS = 8-19) or severe (IPSS > or = 20) urinary symptoms were compared with those with mild or no symptoms (IPSS < 8) using unconditional logistic regression.
RESULTS: The age-specific prevalence of moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms (IPSS > or = 8) in men aged 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 years was 16%, 23% and 28%, respectively. Compared with men with no or mild urinary symptoms (IPSS < 8), men with moderate-to-severe symptoms were more likely to report not currently living as married [odds ratio (OR) = 1.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.0] and being circumcised (OR = 1.5; 95% Cl 1.2-2.0). The increased likelihood associated with drinking an average of > 60g per day of alcohol in the 2 years before interview was of marginal statistical significance (OR = 1.6; 1.0-2.6). There were no significant differences between men with IPSS > or = 8 and those with IPSS < 8 with respect to body mass index, education level, having had a vasectomy, or cigarette smoking.
CONCLUSION: Among Australian men, being circumcised, or not currently living as married, were associated with increased prevalence of urinary symptoms.[/sp]
damage of testicles and/or epididymis is due to epididymitis or orchitis which populates in the urethra
6. dirt can get into your urethra much easier
should be common knowledge, you don't have a foreskin to shield your urethra from any sand or dirt that may get into your urethra
and i think thats it. if you think any of my sources are wrong in any way, feel free to say so. i'm not saying one doctor's idea is always right.[/QUOTE]
1 and 3 both pertain to the same thing which I agreed you were correct on, but also provides a basis to one of my own claims. 2 is your opinion, and I do respect it but I disagree that it is a major con. 4, how is the frenulum necessary at all if it's only purpose it to retract the foreskin? 5 and 6, I counter with [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379710007919[/url] and more specifically [quote=flyschy]These findings have led to calls for promotion of male circumcision, especially in infancy, to help reduce the global burden of penile cancer. Even more relevant globally is protection from cervical cancer, which is 10-times more common, being much higher in women with uncircumcised male partners. Male circumcision also provides indirect protection against various other infections in women, along with direct protection for men from a number of genital tract infections, including HIV. Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted.[/quote]
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32436885]4, how is the frenulum necessary at all if it's only purpose it to retract the foreskin? 5 and 6, I counter with [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379710007919[/url][/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis[/url]
"The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive" and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.”[4] Crooks and Baur observe that two extremely sensitive specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation are the corona, and the frenulum.[5] Repeated stimulation of this structure will cause orgasm and ejaculation in some men.[citation needed]
In men with spinal cord injury preventing sensations from reaching the brain, the frenulum just below the glans can be stimulated to produce orgasm and peri-ejaculatory response.[6][7]"
first of all, don't cite Brain J. Morris, he is VERY pro-circumcision and has called many people who don't agree with him "foreskin fetishists". [url]http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris[/url]
also, please show me a place where i can actually read his paper titled "Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific", because i can't find a place to read it on that link anywhere.
for anyone who is interested, here is a very lengthy statement by Doctors Opposing Circumcision about HIV contraction and circumcision:
[url]http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Contag;32435979]The validity of that research is disputed, as this is a highly politically charged topic. The second isn't as obviously biased.
Objective science there fellas.[/QUOTE]
You're right about it being a disputed topic.
Here's the summary part of the authors response to that (it was a letter to the editor probably not the best source in hindsight).
[quote=Authors response]
In summary, the use of circumcision as a public health measure presents many concerns:
1 Ethical questions about genital surgeries, especially when children are involved
2 Evidence of poor external validity
3 High surgical complication rates
4 HIV infection spread by circumcision
5 Misunderstandings that circumcision makes one immune to HIV
6 Reduction in condom usage
7 Increased male-to-female transmission
8 Diversion of resources from other healthcare and HIV/AIDS prevention strategies
We substantiate these concerns in our original article and in our response to the Wamai letter, and they remain unaddressed by the authors of the Banerjee letter. Until these concerns are addressed, mass surgical campaigns remain unwarranted and counterproductive to the health of the public.[/quote]
[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379710007907]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32436985][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis[/url]
"The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive" and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.”[4] Crooks and Baur observe that two extremely sensitive specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation are the corona, and the frenulum.[5] Repeated stimulation of this structure will cause orgasm and ejaculation in some men.[citation needed]
In men with spinal cord injury preventing sensations from reaching the brain, the frenulum just below the glans can be stimulated to produce orgasm and peri-ejaculatory response.[6][7]"
first of all, don't cite Brain J. Morris, he is VERY pro-circumcision and has called many people who don't agree with him "foreskin fetishists". [url]http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris[/url]
also, please show me a place where i can actually read his paper titled "Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific", because i can't find a place to read it on that link anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Once again that is just another source only providing information about sensitivity. Also, you say that circumcision does remove the entire frenulum but the wikipedia article you gave states that this is almost never the case.
And your right, upon reading more into that source I can not find a direct link to it either. Best to ask flyschy if he ever checks this thread. And why can't I cite someone just because they don't have the same opinion as you? The article doesn't say Morris is the only author either, though.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32437316]Once again that is just another source only providing information about sensitivity. Also, you say that circumcision does remove the entire frenulum but the wikipedia article you gave states that this is almost never the case.
And your right, upon reading more into that source I can not find a direct link to it either. Best to ask flyschy if he ever checks this thread. And why can't I cite someone just because they don't have the same opinion as you? The article doesn't say Morris is the only author either, though.[/QUOTE]
first of all, there is more than one source cited in that one part i quoted from the wikipedia article, please follow its links and read what it has to say.
i'm not saying that you shouldn't cite him because he has differing opinions, i am saying you shouldn't cite him because he is a circumcision fetishist, much different than any type of urologist or doctor. also, he was the main writer of that article, the other people are supporting doctors that made slight contributions to the article, but nothing very significant.
" The frenulum was reported to be cut in 26.7%, 20%, and 33.33% of circumcised patients in various surveys.[8][9]"
nowhere in the article does it say that the frenulum wasn't cut "almost all of the time". 33% of circumcised patients is quite a few patients, and many times at least part of the frenulum is cut off from circumcision, as it is required.
so, let me ask you something serious, do you think that an infant should be restrained and mutilated without anesthetic, regardless of the supposed health benefits it might have?
I had mine done as a child, but that was for medical reasons. I think banning it outright is retarded, but if it's not required medically then I think chances are it's really up to whoever's having it done to decide.
[QUOTE=Fart Commander;32437606]first of all, there is more than one source cited in that one part i quoted from the wikipedia article, please follow its links and read what it has to say.
i'm not saying that you shouldn't cite him because he has differing opinions, i am saying you shouldn't cite him because he is a circumcision fetishist, much different than any type of urologist or doctor. also, he was the main writer of that article, the other people are supporting doctors that made slight contributions to the article, but nothing very significant.
" The frenulum was reported to be cut in 26.7%, 20%, and 33.33% of circumcised patients in various surveys.[8][9]"
nowhere in the article does it say that the frenulum wasn't cut "almost all of the time". 33% of circumcised patients is quite a few patients, and many times at least part of the frenulum is cut off from circumcision, as it is required.
so, let me ask you something serious, do you think that an infant should be restrained and mutilated without anesthetic, regardless of the supposed health benefits it might have?[/QUOTE]
Before you said that there was [quote] loss of the entire frenulum. [/quote] There is a difference between complete removal and a cut.
[quote]The frenulum was reported to be cut in 26.7%, 20%, and 33.33% of circumcised patients in various surveys.[8][9][/quote]
It says right there that it was cut in that percentage, not that it was completely removed. Obviously it's going to have to be cut in order to sever it's ties to the foreskin. I just find it funny that you're trying to tell me everyone who has been circumcised lost this part of their body and I can tell you I still very much have mine.
And how do you know that the other doctors are only supporting doctors if you said so yourself that you can not directly view the article?
I was circumcised for medical reasons at the age of 20. I had no noticeable loss of feeling and, while painful, it healed very quickly.
My stance is that it hurts like fuck, and serves very little good, so there's no point in doing it, other than for socioreligious reasons.
The only reason I could consider it being done reasonably is if there were complications with the foreskin.
I got part of my dick cut off against my consent, and I AM ANGRY.
I was circumcised at birth or at least a very early age. I don't know if it was for religious or medical reasons (never bothered to ask), but I don't really care. My family is hardly religious at all, but we are supposedly jewish. I don't mind not having a foreskin. It's been like that for as long as I remember. It's not like it gives me any trouble. I don't really see what the big fuss is all about. That being said, I don't think I will have it done to my son (if/when I have one) unless necessary.
Circumcised, and I'm against circumcision aside from [I]actual[/I] medical reasons[I can't exactly remember what the reason is for adult circumcision aside from cosmetic look].
[QUOTE=fenwick;32434617]
This is silly.
Who would want less pleasure?
If you can't last in bed then there are other things you can do besides mutilate your penis.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think it's any less pleasure?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.