Male Circumcision

[Ace Rimmer]

Having a foreskin makes sex feel better.

You can only say that if you had sex with a foreskin then later had sex without a foreskin. Other than that it's just conjecture.

[MeDeFe]

Having a foreskin makes sex feel better.

You can only say that if you had sex with a foreskin then later had sex without a foreskin. Other than that it's just conjecture.

Watch the Penn&Teller episode I linked to on page 1 and you'll get a first-hand report from a couple.

[Dibbun]

f*ck CIRCUMCISION.

Fucking bullshit that you fucking fucks would even fucking joke about cutting the tip of a baby boy's dick off, some of the Jews even use their fucking teeth that is fucking nasty as all fucking hell and a total violation of the fucking body I can't fucking believe that such a fucking barbaric fucking practice exists. If you like it then f*ck YOU.

[Ace Rimmer]

f*ck CIRCUMCISION.

Fucking bullshit that you fucking fucks would even fucking joke about cutting the tip of a baby boy's dick off, some of the Jews even use their fucking teeth that is fucking nasty as all fucking hell and a total violation of the fucking body I can't fucking believe that such a fucking barbaric fucking practice exists. If you like it then f*ck YOU.

How do you really feel?

[Campin_Killer]

f*ck CIRCUMCISION.

Fucking bullshit that you fucking fucks would even fucking joke about cutting the tip of a baby boy's dick off, some of the Jews even use their fucking teeth that is fucking nasty as all fucking hell and a total violation of the fucking body I can't fucking believe that such a fucking barbaric fucking practice exists. If you like it then f*ck YOU.

How do you really feel?

Yes, how do you feel?

[BigBallinStalin]

Having a foreskin makes sex feel better.

You can only say that if you had sex with a foreskin then later had sex without a foreskin. Other than that it's just conjecture.

If you want, I can find this article I edited. There was a study conducted on men who had their foreskin removed at a much later age (18-24), and they've all had sex frequently enough to be allowed on the study. The overwhelming majority of them said that sex felt less better after their foreskin was removed.

Why?

Because there's a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin. When you cut that off, you lose some degree of sensation. Forever... FOR EV-ER.

[Gillipig]

Having a foreskin makes sex feel better.

You can only say that if you had sex with a foreskin then later had sex without a foreskin. Other than that it's just conjecture.

It's scientifically proven that foreskin increases sensitivity to the glans, thereby increasing the enjoyment.

[natty dread]

natty(_)dread: "it's ok to kill a child while it's in the womb, but f*ck, don't you dare cut its dick off"

AoG: I troll natty(_)dread because I'm jealous of his height

[saxitoxin]

natty(_)dread: "it's ok to kill a child while it's in the womb, but f*ck, don't you dare cut its dick off"

AoG: I troll natty(_)dread because I'm jealous of his height

How tall are 'ya, Natty? I've always thought you sounded tall on the internet.

[natty dread]

natty(_)dread: "it's ok to kill a child while it's in the womb, but f*ck, don't you dare cut its dick off"

AoG: I troll natty(_)dread because I'm jealous of his height

How tall are 'ya, Natty? I've always thought you sounded tall on the internet.

imperial or metric?

I'm taller in metric

[vodean]

It's cleaner and healthier

Show me the study that hasn't been debunked yet. Water and soap are far more effective.

much reduced chance of getting or carrying STDs

Sorry to poop on your party, but no such thing has been conclusively proven.

sorry to poop in your dinner, but gravity hasnt been conslusively proven either... im pretty sure gravity is real.

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu. Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them. I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.
Back on topic, i do agree that religious circumcision is a negative practice because of the timing and method. if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe. and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

[Haggis_McMutton]

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

I completely agree.
In fact, we should go further!
We used to have hair to protect our scalps, now we have hats, I suggest we use a procedure at birth that destroys the growth of hair.
If it isn't washed hair can be a breeding ground for disease. It is also causes undue mental distress to a large percentange of males when they start balding. Much better if everyone had no hair I say

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu. Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them.

If everyone is entitled to their oppinion, then I'm entitled to my oppinion that I should mock their oppinion if it's bullshit.

I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.

What if he was a part of Jim Jones' cult. Would it still be wrong to "take a part of him"?
What if he were a member of the KKK. Would it still be wrong to "take a part of him"?

Bullshit beliefs should be challenged. It was sad that I "lost a part of me" when I discovered Santa wasn't real. It was also necessary.

if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe. and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

[citation needed]
Watch the Penn & Teller episode please.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

Even if this were true, and I don't know if it is, IT iS NOT a good reason to chop of a person's body parts without their consent. How is this concept difficult to grasp?

[natty dread]

sorry to poop in your dinner, but gravity hasnt been conslusively proven either... im pretty sure gravity is real.

We have evidence that gravity exists. We don't know the exact mechanism behind it yet (although with the discovery of higgs it might be soon discovered), however we can quantify it, measure it's strength, observe it in action, make models and predictions based on it... we have plenty of evidence of gravity.

We have no credible evidence of the medical benefits of circumcision.

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Yes, bacteria exist. There are, inside your body, for every cell of your body, 9-10 bacteria. In other words, your body contains at least 9 times more bacterial cells than your "own" cells. Somehow, you're still alive.

Besides, soap and water are plenty effective for getting rid of harmful bacteria. That is why you're told to wash lettuce and other vegetables before eating them, to wash away the E. Coli bacteria from them. And you don't even use soap for them.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

Every argument you've made in your post so far has been a logical fallacy, but this one is the best so far. You're drawing a false dichotomy, where the alternatives are either genital mutilation or giving up clothes and every other invention from the last 100 000 years. That's not the case - male genital mutilation is not a requirement for wearing clothes.

The "reason" we have a foreskin is because we've evolved to have one. At some point in our evolutionary history it was beneficial for us to have it, for whatever reason. It may not serve the same purpose right now, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter. We don't use our toes to hang from tree branches either, yet you're not cutting away your toes, or advocating the cutting of toes of infants.

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu.

No, you stfu. Religion doesn't give you the right to do anything you want. You can't go around raping and murdering and then claiming it's ok because "your religion commands it". People who do that are called criminally insane and put away in institutions for life.

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them.

So you wouldn't have a problem if I choose to sacrifice my firstborn son to the sun god Tonatiuh? Apparently, anything and everything is allowed if it's a part of your religion...

I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.

By the way, my religion demands that you send me $500. If you don't send me the money right now, I might lose my faith. DO IT BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

Back on topic, i do agree that religious circumcision is a negative practice because of the timing and method. if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe.

Your arms can be amputated safely, with the proper instruments etc. - that doesn't mean it should be allowed to be done to infants.

and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

1. Anecdotal. (to save you a wikipedia trip, it means that what you've personally heard from a friend-of-a-friend or overheard in the hairdresser doesn't count as credible evidence)
2. It has been shown that circumcision - even when performed correctly by medical professionals - can reduce sensation in the penis by up to 75%. It does not increase pleasure, it reduces it.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

No they don't.

[Symmetry]

It's cleaner and healthier

Show me the study that hasn't been debunked yet. Water and soap are far more effective.

much reduced chance of getting or carrying STDs

Sorry to poop on your party, but no such thing has been conclusively proven.

sorry to poop in your dinner, but gravity hasnt been conslusively proven either... im pretty sure gravity is real.

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu. Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them. I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.
Back on topic, i do agree that religious circumcision is a negative practice because of the timing and method. if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe. and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

Then be in favour of gay men getting circumcisions, if that's the issue. How one can predict that a newborn boy will grow up to be a gay man is beyond me. It's simply not an argument in favour of infant circumcision.

[patrickaa317]

It's cleaner and healthier

Show me the study that hasn't been debunked yet. Water and soap are far more effective.

much reduced chance of getting or carrying STDs

Sorry to poop on your party, but no such thing has been conclusively proven.

sorry to poop in your dinner, but gravity hasnt been conslusively proven either... im pretty sure gravity is real.

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu. Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them. I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.
Back on topic, i do agree that religious circumcision is a negative practice because of the timing and method. if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe. and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

Then be in favour of gay men getting circumcisions, if that's the issue. How one can predict that a newborn boy will grow up to be a gay man is beyond me. It's simply not an argument in favour of infant circumcision.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

[saxitoxin]

Then be in favour of gay men getting circumcisions, if that's the issue. How one can predict that a newborn boy will grow up to be a gay man is beyond me. It's simply not an argument in favour of infant circumcision.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

you're being consistent - stop it

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I'm always astonished at those who actually defend infant circumcision. What a disgusting and repugnant practice.

It's a doberman, let it keep its ears. Now I'll have the JDL on my ass.

-TG

[Symmetry]

It's cleaner and healthier

Show me the study that hasn't been debunked yet. Water and soap are far more effective.

much reduced chance of getting or carrying STDs

Sorry to poop on your party, but no such thing has been conclusively proven.

sorry to poop in your dinner, but gravity hasnt been conslusively proven either... im pretty sure gravity is real.

its not that dirt gets trapped under the foreskin. its that bacteria get trapped in there. its a breeding ground. soap can do nothing, and because its outside the body, yet right next to an orifice and covered by skin, it is a great place to breed bacteria.

Do you know why we even have a foreskin? its to protect the penis from branches and stuff. a few thousand years ago we replaced the foreskin with clothing! but maybe you want to go back to those days...

If it is the religious practice of circumcision as a 'coming of age' practice that you have a problem with, then seriously guys, stfu. Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion, and stop hatin' on religion so much. It is not our place to correct them. I convinced, after years of effort, one of my close friends that his form of religion must be wrong. He has started to lose his faith, and now i feel awful, because i have taken away a part of him. It will take time to get rid of religion. not stubbornness and assery.
Back on topic, i do agree that religious circumcision is a negative practice because of the timing and method. if it is done at birth, and with the proper instruments, circumcision is actually perfectly safe. and i have heard the opposite of whoever said sex is less pleasurable. circumcision means MORE direct contact between the head of the penis and the female (or male, if you swing that way) body, and hence more pleasure.

Finally, statistics CONCLUSIVELY prove that AIDS rates among gay men who are circumcised are CONSIDERABLY lower than among gay men who are not.

Then be in favour of gay men getting circumcisions, if that's the issue. How one can predict that a newborn boy will grow up to be a gay man is beyond me. It's simply not an argument in favour of infant circumcision.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

Perhaps your gaydar is more sensitive than my own, and is particularly correlated towards infants. A remarkable talent, but more than a little disturbing when applied to infants you claim to be protecting from sexually transmitted diseases as if they were the same as fully adult gay men.

[rdsrds2120]

-TG

You go, girl.

Circumcision...I don't mind having been circumcised as a baby, but that's because I don't remember the pain. I imagine it was excruciating.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

How do you even...what?

-rd

[BigBallinStalin]

-TG

You go, girl.

Circumcision...I don't mind having been circumcised as a baby, but that's because I don't remember the pain. I imagine it was excruciating.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

How do you even...what?

-rd

Yeah, you don't know?! Get with the program, girl!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

-TG

You go, girl.

Circumcision...I don't mind having been circumcised as a baby, but that's because I don't remember the pain. I imagine it was excruciating.

I thought gay people were born that way and that it wasn't a choice. If so, eventually you should be able to determine this at birth, no?

How do you even...what?

-rd

I'm a supporter of H.O.O.P.

-TG

[saxitoxin]

Circumcision may have been performed by Jews in antiquity to create aggressive warriors better equipped to fight against the dire odds they faced. Circumcised armies may perform better in battle as they are more likely to be predisposed to violence and disinclined to mercy. Circumcision should be common in empire-building nations or nations in siege. It helps mold effective soldiers.

Perinatal trauma. Circumcision is a form of perinatal (birth) trauma. Cansever tested boys before and after circumcision and found that the trauma causes severe disturbance of normal psychological functions.

Taddio and others have documented behavioral changes at six months of age, suggestive of PTSD in circumcised boys. Yilmaz et al. have demonstrated PTSD in boys in the phallic period who are undergoing circumcision for phimosis. Rhinehart has documented posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from the perinatal trauma of circumcision in middle-aged males. substantial evidence that perinatal trauma and/or deprivation of pleasure contribute to later aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour. Anand and Scalzo suggest that early trauma predisposes to altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, ADD/hyperactivity, and self-destructive disorders. Van der Kolk identified a compulsion in traumatized persons to repeat the trauma. Goldman reports that the performance of circumcision by a circumcised male doctor may be a reenactment of one's own circumcision trauma.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/

However, circumcised persons who support circumcision are suffering from circumcision-induced insanity so their opinions should not be considered in the debate. The will rationalize any scrap of evidence, no matter how thin, to support the procedure. Only the opinions of circumcised persons who oppose circumcision and uncircumcised persons should be considered.

Denial of loss. Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss. The first stage of grief is denial of the loss. Fitzgerald and Parkes state that "Anything that seriously impairs sensory or cognitive function is bound to have profound psychological effects, not only on the person who is affected but also on family, friends, workmates, and caregivers." The thought of permanent loss of sensory function is so painful that persons deny their loss in order to avoid facing the painful feelings. Denial of loss causes a flight from reality. Parkes et al. state that persons in denial may minimize their loss. Circumcision causes the loss of a body part and all of its functions including a drastic loss of erogenous sensory function, so denial of loss is not uncommon in circumcised males. Circumcised males may experience the full range of distress and emotional dysfunction resulting from loss. This frequently results in circumcised fathers adamantly insisting that a son be circumcised.

Fathers are frequently unable to vocalize their feelings. They will say that "I want my son to look like me," even though the child may be different in eye color, hair color, and other aspects. In fact, what the father really may be feeling is, "I don't want a son with an intact penis to remind me of what I have lost."

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/

[Woodruff]

I feel the same way regarding ear piercings for infants. It's really quite ridiculous.

[GBU56]

Circumcision should only be performed when there's a medical need or after the male has reached adulthood and requests it.

To those of you who have been circumcised at birth you really don't know the pleasures of having a foreskin during masterbation and sex.

Why would any parent alllow their son to be brutalized at birth and reduce his pleasures in the future? This should be declared a "Crime against Humanity" at the United Nations!

[Woodruff]

I feel the same way regarding ear piercings for infants. It's really quite ridiculous.

Why is there no outcry about this? It's becoming a national plague.