Russell Crowe sorry after anti-circumcision tweets
213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384220]there is when every fucking chance people with those opinions get they argue for countless pages completely derailing every thread time and time again whenever circumcision's morality is mentioned[/QUOTE]
But that's the topic of the thread, that and Russel Crowe.
[QUOTE=STeel;30384178]If you don't care so much, how about you don't post here?
There's nothing wrong with people having different opinions[/QUOTE]
There's absolutely something wrong when you argue for a million posts at a time about your dick compared to some other guy's dick and why yours is better/worse because your parent made a choice for you that you literally did not care about until you read this thread.
[QUOTE=STeel;30384229]Hasn't it actually been concluded by a study that being not-circumcised decreases the risk to penile cancer?[/QUOTE]
Less skin = less cells to get cancered, sounds legitimate to me, albeit a stretch
[QUOTE=STeel;30384229]Hasn't it actually been concluded by a study that being not-circumcised decreases the risk to penile cancer?[/QUOTE]
there have been so many contradicting studies on this that I find it hard to believe any of it
how about we just leave baby dicks alone? and just leave them how they're meant to be
when the person is old enough to make the decision for himself then let him, but don't force it on a baby
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384244]Less skin = less cells to get cancered, sounds legitimate to me, albeit a stretch[/QUOTE]
It also exposes your inner skin though
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384261]there have been so many contradicting studies on this that I find it hard to believe any of it
how about we just leave baby dicks alone? and just leave them how they're meant to be
when the person is old enough to make the decision for himself then let him, but don't force it on a baby[/QUOTE]
It's easier for it to just be done at a baby's age, it's like they don't go through the pain at all because you don't remember it
[QUOTE=STeel;30384229]Hasn't it actually been concluded by a study that being not-circumcised decreases the risk to penile cancer?[/QUOTE]
there are a bunch of studies that say a bunch of different shit, either way its a tiny bit of dick flesh and you REALLY REALLY shouldn't care much about this issue
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384283]It's easier for it to just be done at a baby's age, it's like they don't go through the pain at all because you don't remember it[/QUOTE]
You can get anesthesia at an older age.
I also don't understand the "they don't remember it so it's okay" argument, why not come up with something else painful but arguably with benefits, and say it's okay just because the baby doesn't remember it?
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384283]It's easier for it to just be done at a baby's age, it's like they don't go through the pain at all because you don't remember it[/QUOTE]
And how is this acceptable?
It still doesn't explain why this should be forced on a baby who has no say in it. Just because it's supposedly "easier" doesn't make it right.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384310]And how is this acceptable?
It still doesn't explain why this should be forced on a baby who has no say in it. Just because it's supposedly "easier" doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
Does it matter
honestly, most babies don't know anything is wrong, and they NEVER FUCKING DO, unless they are convinced by someone that it is wrong.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384319]Does it matter
honestly, most babies don't know anything is wrong, and they NEVER FUCKING DO, unless they are convinced by someone that it is wrong.[/QUOTE]
[b]Newsflash![/b]
Babies...
grow up!
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384333][b]Newsflash![/b]
Babies...
grow up![/QUOTE]
Darn I didn't mean babies, I meant the people that get circumcised in general, not just babies
well yes it applies to babies too, they don't know nothin
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;30384346]Darn I didn't mean babies, I meant the people that get circumcised in general, not just babies
well yes it applies to babies too, they don't know nothin[/QUOTE]
Would it be okay to rape a baby too then, just because the baby remembers nothing and knows nothing?
I mean, sure circumcision is arguably beneficial, but who knows, maybe if we raped babies at birth we'd also notice a beneficial change?
[QUOTE=STeel;30384360]Would it be okay to rape a baby too then, just because the baby remembers nothing and knows nothing?
I mean, sure circumcision is arguably beneficial, but who knows, maybe if we raped babies at birth we'd also notice a beneficial change?[/QUOTE]
if there were little consequence to raping babies at birth then yes it would be totally fine to rape babies
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384451]if there were little consequence to raping babies at birth then yes it would be totally fine to rape babies[/QUOTE]
huh
that's not the best way to put it
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30383901]circumcision is pointless and unnecessary, and it's sick and wrong to force this on babies who have no say in this[/QUOTE]
Phimosis.
[QUOTE=Dalek;30384484]Phimosis.[/QUOTE]
Then you get circumcised. You don't remove body parts without a good reason, and possible phimosis isn't a particularly good reason.
[QUOTE=Dalek;30384484]Phimosis.[/QUOTE]
yes because everyone who isn't circumcised gets phimosis
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384007]why are you so mad about some baby boys dick skin, it's really not as big of an issue as people make it out to be[/QUOTE]
Because it deprives the kid of sensitivity. I'm circumcised and frankly I'm irritated about it. There's no point to it.
[QUOTE=IDTL;30384552]Because it deprives the kid of sensitivity. I'm circumcised and frankly I'm irritated about it. There's no point to it.[/QUOTE]
This is how I feel as well.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384534]yes because everyone who isn't circumcised gets phimosis[/QUOTE]
You said it as if though the only reason people get circumcision is for religious causes.
[QUOTE=Dalek;30384573]You said it as if though the only reason people get circumcision is for religious causes.[/QUOTE]
That's how it started out.
There's generally no reason to be doing it now. In some extreme cases, sure, but the average baby is perfectly fine at birth. As Thy Reaper said, don't remove body parts without a good reason.
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384590]That's how it started out.
There's generally no reason to be doing it now. In some extreme cases, sure, but the average baby is perfectly fine at birth. As Thy Reaper said, don't remove body parts without a good reason.[/QUOTE]
I think you're a little pissed about your circumsicion and that is affecting your view. I'm also circumsised but I don't really care or think what my life could have been like if I didn't. Fact is, I don't really care as long as I still have my penis.
[QUOTE=IDTL;30384552]Because it deprives the kid of sensitivity. I'm circumcised and frankly I'm irritated about it. There's no point to it.[/QUOTE]
thats not actually true
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384639]thats not actually true[/QUOTE]
It does make your foreskin harder and less sensitive.
[QUOTE=PunchedInFac;30384618]I think you're a little pissed about your circumsicion and that is affecting your view. I'm also circumsised but I don't really care or think what my life could have been like if I didn't. Fact is, I don't really care as long as I still have my penis.[/QUOTE]
If it continues to upset some people into adulthood, shouldn't that factor into whether or not it's allowed?
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384639]thats not actually true[/QUOTE]
Hahaha
I found an excellent post that explains this:
[quote]
The foreskin is highly erogenous, containing 20,000 nerve endings (making up 67% of the total amount of nerve endings in the penis). It in itself is pleasurable to touch, but it also functions to keep the rest of the penis sensitive, especially the glans. Without the foreskin, the glans (head) callouses and dries-out (a process called "keratinization"), losing a significant amount of sensitivity. This is a gradual process, worsening as a man ages. With the foreskin, the glans is protected and kept moist and sensitive throughout his entire life.
The foreskin also has a natural gliding mechanism that is destroyed by circumcision. Intact ("uncircumcised") men typically don't need lube. The foreskin slides up and down the penis during sex/masturbation, adding further stimulation.
There are blood vessels that are severed during circumcision. Basically, blood has to travel a different (and unnatural) route through the penis. And when you add in the nerve damage and sensitivity loss, it's no wonder why the USA sells so much viagra.
Bottom line: A penis was designed to function with a foreskin.
The people who say that circumcised feels the same or better must be EXTREMELY uninformed on anatomically-correct genitalia and on the functions of the foreskin.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zachary1392;30384672]Hahaha
I found an excellent post that explains this:[/QUOTE]
hahaha
suck my circumcised cock:
[quote]Many researches have revealed a decreased penis sensitivity in the case of circumcised penises. But a new research made at the Department
of Psychology of McGill University in Montreal comes to challenge this. The authors say that sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be so notable after all. They made genital sensory testing on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal.
The results revealed no difference between the two groups in sensitivity to touch or pain. "This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded," said lead author Dr. Kimberley Payne.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384729]hahaha
suck my circumcised cock:[/QUOTE]
I once fell asleep and during the sleep I had my foreskin exposed, it dried out temporarily and was already a lot less sensitive, so I'd say that at least for me this claim is quite well founded.
And why was this research conducted at the department of [i]Psychology[/i], it's a physiological deal.
[QUOTE=Gaza Pen Pal;30384729]hahaha
suck my circumcised cock:[/QUOTE]
No link to the study, or any way to easily look it up, kinda defeats its usefulness. What was the methodology? What was the confidence interval?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.