EPTCircumcision: The Elephant in the Hospital. - Page 11
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
apathetic21
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
Tatari
United States1179 Posts
Though, my uncle had circumcision as an adolescent, and he went through a world of hellish pain... Maybe the pain affects some people? And for the women, I heard the prefer circumcised penises because uh... it looks better... ._.' P.S. I've no idea why girls get circumcised. Is there a religious purpose behind it? Any health benefits? All I know is that circumcised men don't have to deal with smegma, phimosis, piss getting on their foreskin, etc. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:12 MaKfejA wrote: No one in this thread is ever going to agree with the other standpoint. No one is ever going to convince anyone. A bit off-topic, but I think one of my biggest internet pet peeves in the world is this statement. I think the only people who ever say it are people who are too closed minded to have ever changed their opinion on anything. On what grounds do you assert that "No one is ever going to convince anyone"? Sure, it doesn't happen every single post or even every thread, but that doesn't mean that it never happens. | ||
|
zylog
Canada943 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:11 Tippecanoe wrote: It's all about preference. Indeed, so unless circumcision becomes a medical necessity, how about we let individuals decide for themselves whether they want to be circumcised or not. | ||
|
Zerksys
United States569 Posts
Did anyone notice that the math was completely off? I'm not for or against circumcision but I believe that 73 out of 5400 is around 1.4 percent. Then the OP goes on to say "Even if the above claim is true, it would require circumcising around 1000 men to protect only one. (source from The Intactivism Pages)" So if this is true then where did the 73 men out of 5400 come from? Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you meant .73 men (god knows how they came up with seven tenths of a man). Now we extrapolate to one million men. Now we've come up with 135 men who were protected from the HIV virus who would have had it without the circumcision. I'd like a response from the OP about his math skills  Honestly there are really good reasons for it and reasons against it, but to say that ALL MEN should not get circumcisions is not correct. In environments where bacteria is rampant and frequent showers in clean water are not possible, a circumcision can be the thing that saves you from a dangerous infection. In first world countries where you have the luxury of taking showers every day, then yes not having a circumcision is a good choice because it increases sexual pleasure. To say that men who do not have circumcisions are somehow better than those without foreskins... well now you're just trying to belittle people. (This coming from a health professions student) I don't see anything wrong with having it and not having it. I was born and raised in China and moved to America when I was young so I've seen both sides of the argument. The state of my genitalia however is my own business and I suggest everyone else in this thread take my example. When choosing for your child this is a good thing to keep in mind, but in the end the choice comes down to the parents and what their values are. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
If all of this stuff is half as subjective as it seems (on both sides of the argument), combined with the fact that neither side has a legitimate, 100% unarguable and significant benefit to their side, then this seems like such a useless thread. | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:19 Mindcrime wrote: Indeed, so unless circumcision becomes a medical necessity, how about we let individuals decide for themselves whether they want to be circumcised or not. I agree with this. I mean, a lot of people are arguing for or against the merits/detriments of circumcision, but I'm simply arguing against parents deciding for their children. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:16 Tatari wrote: I've asked my mom several times about when I was circumcised as a baby. she said I didn't even notice it. *snip*, done. Though, my uncle had circumcision as an adolescent, and he went through a world of hellish pain... Maybe the pain affects some people? And for the women, I heard the prefer circumcised penises because uh... it looks better... ._.' P.S. I've no idea why girls get circumcised. Is there a religious purpose behind it? Any health benefits? All I know is that circumcised men don't have to deal with smegma, phimosis, piss getting on their foreskin, etc. I've never heard of female genital mutiliation other than as a means of oppression. The idea being that women shouldn't enjoy sex, or that they'll be more faithful that way. I'm not sure if there are other reasons to do it. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:19 TALegion wrote: I'm extremely confused by one thing about this thread: Who gives this much of a shit? If all of this stuff is half as subjective as it seems (on both sides of the argument), combined with the fact that neither side has a legitimate, 100% unarguable and significant benefit to their side, then this seems like such a useless thread. It's ridiculous that we ritually mutilate babies all the time because of either religion, stupid misconceptions, or cosmetic reasons. Sure, it's not the biggest crisis in the world, but I always try to combat stupidity in all of its forms. Also, no, it's not subjective in the slightest. By the moral standards we generally use to judge all other actions, infant circumcision is pretty objectively wrong. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:18 zylog wrote: Is there a difference in friction and lubrication needed? I know that with a foreskin, it slides over and off the the glans. It feels good, as it provides a bit of a buffer for the revealed glans which can be super sensitive. How is it with circumcised men? The glans is fully exposed from the start, which I'd imagine would be potentially uncomfortable in certain situations unless heavily lubricated. Whenever I run it is really uncomfortable because my glans is always rubbing against underwear. It doesn't really matter if I wear boxers or briefs although I prefer tight whitey tighties when I run to keep my junk in place. Sensitivity issues are interesting. Studies tend to show circumcised penises to be less sensitive to pressure, but circumcised men really don't report less pleasure from sex (Unless I am missing something or circumcised men don't know they are screwed because they have never had it the other way around). Does anything exist on asking men who were circumcised later in life how their sexual pleasure changed? | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
On September 09 2011 08:45 hazelynut wrote: now i'm wondering whether you find the "natural" look on women attractive. armpit hair, moustache fuzz, happy trails, lots of shrubbery. Me personally, I don't mind. I'm not a big fan of how our society is gradually getting more and more shallow, so that girls feel pressured to get breast implants for instance. I think it's fucked up. But the things you bring up are besides the point of this thread anyway. These aren't things that we do, pretty much irreversibly, to our children when they are infants and have so say in it whatsoever. Hearing these women argue that cutting of the foreskin on an infant boy because they think uncircumcised penises are gross made me want to puke. | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:20 DoubleReed wrote: I've never heard of female genital mutiliation other than as a means of oppression. The idea being that women shouldn't enjoy sex, or that they'll be more faithful that way. I'm not sure if there are other reasons to do it. I think 99% of female circumcision is with malicious or warped intents (from a modern western perspective). That being said, the same medical problems brought on by foreskin could hold true for a female and her labia. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
I will reiterate, there ARE medical benefits to circumcision but they are by no means a matter of life and death. There are no scientifically verifiable draw backs to circumcision that I have found (from my medical experience or from this thread) when the procedure is performed correctly. Make your decision based on these facts (or others I have missed, I am open to studies from impartial researchers), not on "penis power" lol. | ||
|
shadowboxer
United States224 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:50 SpearWrit wrote: You fail to mention that uncircumcised babies also run the risk of Phimosis, where the foreskin cannot be retracted, blocking the urethra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis You also fail to mention that Smegma also grows under foreskins over time, even for uncircumcised men who regularly wash under the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma Having a foreskin doesn't stop a man from having a "dick that isn't calloused and scarred." Circumcised penises grow used to contact with the outside and clothes that allow the skin to toughen and adapt and desensitize in a way that uncircumcised males cannot because they have a layer of skin over the sensitive area. As such, circumcised men have longer stamina during sex BECAUSE their sex organ is less sensitive. This. Honestly sounds like OP had a chick shit on his hopes and dreams because she finds uncircumcised penises ugly. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:22 Romantic wrote: Whenever I run it is really uncomfortable because my glans is always rubbing against underwear. It doesn't really matter if I wear boxers or briefs although I prefer tight whitey tighties when I run to keep my junk in place. Sensitivity issues are interesting. Studies tend to show circumcised penises to be less sensitive to pressure, but circumcised men really don't report less pleasure from sex (Unless I am missing something or circumcised men don't know they are screwed because they have never had it the other way around). Does anything exist on asking men who were circumcised later in life how their sexual pleasure changed? Well you'd have to find men that have had sex before and after circumcision AND did not have problems with their foreskin. So, basically you'd need to find a bunch of guys who had a circumcision perform late in life because they either wanted a new look for their penis or because they didn't like showering. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:21 matjlav wrote: It's ridiculous that we ritually mutilate babies all the time because of either religion, stupid misconceptions, or cosmetic reasons. Sure, it's not the biggest crisis in the world, but I always try to combat stupidity in all of its forms. Also, no, it's not subjective in the slightest. By the moral standards we generally use to judge all other actions, infant circumcision is pretty objectively wrong. ^^^ See, this is why I can't stand people saying the word 'mutilate' even if it is technically accurate. | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:23 Velocirapture wrote: This whole conversation has flown off the deep end. When coming into a conversation about such a sensitive (pun intended) issue, one should expect inflammatory arguments on both sides just like we see here. But if you look past the "it looks better" and "its child abuse and mutilation" arguments to see the scientifically founded ones, you get a better idea. I will reiterate, there ARE medical benefits to circumcision but they are by no means a matter of life and death. There are no scientifically verifiable draw backs to circumcision that I have found (from my medical experience or from this thread) when the procedure is performed correctly. Make your decision based on these facts (or others I have missed, I am open to studies from impartial researchers), not on "penis power" lol. I agree with the point about aesthetic debate, the "child abuse" factor is still important, imo. Now, I wouldn't call it child abuse per say, but I still believe people should be able to decide for themselves, and not have their parents decide for them. The scientific aspect is important, but so is the moral aspect. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On September 09 2011 09:25 flodeskum wrote: Well you'd have to find men that have had sex before and after circumcision AND did not have problems with their foreskin. So, basically you'd need to find a bunch of guys who had a circumcision perform late in life because they either wanted a new look for their penis or because they didn't like showering. Yeah, they would need to have had healthy sex with a functioning penis prior to circumcision. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:50 SpearWrit wrote: You fail to mention that uncircumcised babies also run the risk of Phimosis, where the foreskin cannot be retracted, blocking the urethra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis You also fail to mention that Smegma also grows under foreskins over time, even for uncircumcised men who regularly wash under the foreskin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma Having a foreskin doesn't stop a man from having a "dick that isn't calloused and scarred." Circumcised penises grow used to contact with the outside and clothes that allow the skin to toughen and adapt and desensitize in a way that uncircumcised males cannot because they have a layer of skin over the sensitive area. As such, circumcised men have longer stamina during sex BECAUSE their sex organ is less sensitive. Women expect circumcised penises most of the time. I know girls that freaked out the first time they saw one that wasn't. And the guy above me has a good point. Personally I could care less about my sexual satisfaction. I more preoccupied that she gets what she wants  . TLDR 1)Look better 2)May null your satisfaction, but if that's what it takes to make the ladies happy so be it. And personally I who am circumcised feel confident. 3)Easier to clean. If we were in the desert you would die first from infection | ||
| ||
