On November 30 2010 03:23 VIB wrote: IMHO all you guys saying you don't want your penis "mutilated" are all just a bunch of drama queens
The benefits might be small but the drawbacks are ridiculously insignificant. There might not be too many people who would contract diseases because they don't wash up. But they are certainly much more than the amount of people who got their penis accidentally cut off, or the amount of people who feel traumatized today because they got cruelty mutilated when they were 1 minute old.
You could not be more wrong about this subject. The draw backs are extremely significant.
Let's play the compare game.
Female genitals ~ 8,000 nerve endings
Penis with no foreskin ~ 4,000 nerve endings
Penis WITH foreskin ~ 40,000 nerve endings
That's an EXTREME difference.
"or the amount of people who feel traumatized today because they got cruelty mutilated when they were 1 minute old."
You make it seem like its nothing at all, have you seen a circumcision video? I'm going to throw a wild guess out there and say "no".
Here's a free nice video (not sure if its been posted yet) on the subject.
What difference does any of that makes in my life today? I've seen the video, I still don't remember when it happened to me. I'm not traumatized. I've seen the numbers about my nerve endings and I still have a lot of fun with my penis. I'm not missing any of it.
"I'm not missing any of it". Could you please clarify this statement?
How could you not be missing any of it if you don't know what you're missing? I don't understand this reasoning. I mean, obviously no one is saying circumcision leads to complete loss of function, but it does lead to a loss of a degree of function, and the procedure is done so early so as you never know the exact degree lost. If you had it done as an adult, and remember very clearly the sensation before and after the procedure, then you might be qualified to say something like that.
So now it's a philosophical question of how we label each feeling? That's subjective, it doesn't matter. I'm not traumatized. I'm happy. That's what matters.
It's not a philosophical question, it's a medical question. And it's not subjective. Saying you're okay with the function provided by your circumcised penis and saying you don't miss any of the function lost due to circumcision are two very different things, so pick your statements carefully.
It's not important if I don't know exactly how I would feel. What matters if I am happy with the way I am or not. I also don't know how it would feel if another man stuck his penis inside my butt. And I do have the option to try it if I wanted to. But I'm so happy without it that I don't feel like I should try it. Because I'm just fine without it.
On November 30 2010 01:58 johanngrunt wrote: You are (hopefully) against female circumcision, why do you support male circumcision?
i dont know if that was aimed at me but i never suported circumcision and i have nothing against a grown man that does it but the more interesting point here is women circumcision (ppl mistakenly confuse the term with mutilation).
woman circumcision = cuting off her inner labia to some extent (some opt for a full removal) woman mutilation = varies in degree, but it can include clitoris removal, full labia removal (outer and inner), vagina opening sown (after which a hole is drilled to allow pee and other stuff to come out).
grown women choose to be circumcised most of the times for pure "cosmetic" reasons. no one (civilised) is circumcising girls after their birth.
I got circumcised at age of 20 (medical issue), so experienced sex before (at before i mean before my penis went wrong:D) and after it. I felt no difference. Its a hard decision, its like baptism (sligthly different tho), how can a parent decide what is my religion and so. Some countries take religion seriously, in some cases u cant go to a country with this and that religion. Religion got pros and contras too (but different ones ofcourse). So ban baptism and other religious things at birth too. imho.
On November 30 2010 03:23 VIB wrote: IMHO all you guys saying you don't want your penis "mutilated" are all just a bunch of drama queens
The benefits might be small but the drawbacks are ridiculously insignificant. There might not be too many people who would contract diseases because they don't wash up. But they are certainly much more than the amount of people who got their penis accidentally cut off, or the amount of people who feel traumatized today because they got cruelty mutilated when they were 1 minute old.
You could not be more wrong about this subject. The draw backs are extremely significant.
Let's play the compare game.
Female genitals ~ 8,000 nerve endings
Penis with no foreskin ~ 4,000 nerve endings
Penis WITH foreskin ~ 40,000 nerve endings
That's an EXTREME difference.
"or the amount of people who feel traumatized today because they got cruelty mutilated when they were 1 minute old."
You make it seem like its nothing at all, have you seen a circumcision video? I'm going to throw a wild guess out there and say "no".
Here's a free nice video (not sure if its been posted yet) on the subject.
What difference does any of that makes in my life today? I've seen the video, I still don't remember when it happened to me. I'm not traumatized. I've seen the numbers about my nerve endings and I still have a lot of fun with my penis. I'm not missing any of it.
"I'm not missing any of it". Could you please clarify this statement?
How could you not be missing any of it if you don't know what you're missing? I don't understand this reasoning. I mean, obviously no one is saying circumcision leads to complete loss of function, but it does lead to a loss of a degree of function, and the procedure is done so early so as you never know the exact degree lost. If you had it done as an adult, and remember very clearly the sensation before and after the procedure, then you might be qualified to say something like that.
So now it's a philosophical question of how we label each feeling? That's subjective, it doesn't matter. I'm not traumatized. I'm happy. That's what matters.
It's not a philosophical question, it's a medical question. And it's not subjective. Saying you're okay with the function provided by your circumcised penis and saying you don't miss any of the function lost due to circumcision are two very different things, so pick your statements carefully.
It's not important if I don't know exactly how I would feel. What matters if I am happy with the way I am or not. I also don't know how it would feel if another man stuck his penis inside my butt. And I do have the option to try it if I wanted to. But I'm so happy without it that I don't feel like I should try it. Because I'm just fine without it.
Many of the old religious customs were done as part of a health system. Jews are usually known as the group that circumcised, which is probably the healthy thing to do in a dirtier time thousands of years ago. They also do not eat pork, which was straight up unsanitary back then and was making a lot of folks sick.
Medical aspects of the Jewish faith may be outdated, but keep an open mind on where they come from and the good it has done in the past.
On November 30 2010 05:09 Breach_hu wrote: I got circumcised at age of 20 (medical issue), so experienced sex before and after it. I felt no difference.
this is also what my friend told me when i asked him earlier this morning. He also experience both sides of the picture when he got a circumcision a few years back. i never thought about asking him such a question till now, (cuz after all, what dude asks another dude about there dick?) but he said at first it did feel a bit "wierd" but as the months went by he didnt feel much of a difference and his orgasms were of the same intensity.
Yes, circumcising infants should most definitely be forbidden.
There are medical reasons both pro and con but it's an irreversible procedure and therefor it shouldn't be done before the person can make a decision themselves.
On November 30 2010 05:09 Breach_hu wrote: I got circumcised at age of 20 (medical issue), so experienced sex before and after it. I felt no difference.
this is also what my friend told me when i asked him earlier this morning. He also experience both sides of the picture when he got a circumcision a few years back. i never thought about asking him such a question till now, (cuz after all, what dude asks another dude about there dick?) but he said at first it did feel a bit "wierd" but as the months went by he didnt feel much of a difference and his orgasms were of the same intensity.
so there you have it.
I think the argument behind the whole make your dick feel better thing is that if you are uncircumcised your dick head will come in contact with less things on accident or w/e in general thus making your dick head more sensitive when it's time to get it sucked on or jam it into a woman's body (I think I'm being descriptive here to help illustrate how retarded this proposal is). I could still see that being true by a small margin.
If it is the case, neither of the subjects would be able to tell the difference because they were already protected by the skin for most of their life.
But yet again the question I'm dying to have answered is... How does this justify political intervention in an era of lack of political intervention for issues that really matter? Isn't cali in a big debt problem? Stop thinking about dicks and think about fixing your economy perhaps would be my advice.
How can anyone be agianst this? Noone has the right to decide FOR you that certain parts of your body should be cut off and mutilated. - As for the health benefits, just don't be lazy and clean your peepee. Also people can get it done later when THEY choose too, and while they can not yet make the decision, they probably won't and shouldn't be having sex yet anyway. Also also, DO take into account that every year in America alone hundreds of children are brought into the hospital with infections (and even die from them) caused by circumcisions.
On November 30 2010 05:34 Contagious wrote: Stupid law.. really why would you try to change something after so long lol.. This guy is making some stupid laws :x
also.. chicks don't like foreskin. obv known fact. lol
Keep doing something over and over again for the sake of nothing more than tradition is one of the dumbest reason to do anything. Especially when those action are done to someone who have absolutely no say in the matter what so ever.
On November 29 2010 13:26 Jarhead wrote: I agree with Krigwin. Watch the procedure some time, the baby doesn't look happy.
If you turn 18 and want it done, go for it. I just wish I hadn't had my genitals mutilated as a child.
Uhh... Okay...
Anyone using the word "mutilation" to describe this is just absurd.
I'm siding against this (But certainly not because of religious reasons, they just happen to be on the side I am supporting) but I don't understand why they would really want to outlaw this procedure? I could care less about what religion says but I don't really see a downside to it. If it supposedly helps prevent STD's and other 'diseases', why would they be trying to outlaw it?
I don't see any significant advantages coming out of this..
And god spoke to Moses, "Circumcise ur penis infidel! ur penis is unlean!" People seem to forget that not everyone have developed empathy for anyone else, that part of the brain is not active, they are called psycopaths (1 out of 25 people), and this is a perfect example of a tradition a psycopath would instill. This is the stuff that appears in all culture, where cowardly empathic people need to work against highly motivated psycopaths. Like feet wrapping in china or land diving in Vanuatu, human sacrifice from the atzec. there are traditions that are pretty hilarious for a psychopath.
The question is not if circumcision is healthy or not, the question u should ask urself is, what is the motivation behind someone suggesting or performing this in the first place?
On November 29 2010 21:16 venomium wrote: Oh, and Blackjack, nice that you could find Google, but you should google your sources a little more. This studie has been considered false by many other studies, because the authors are biased.
For example
With respect to the use of circumcision to prevent HPV infection, our study was limited, since it was confined to a subgroup of subjects who were observed both at enrollment and at 24 months. In both the intervention and control groups, these subjects may represent a self-selected population of compliant subjects who could be at lower risk for HPV infection than the general population; this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision. Also, since samples were evaluated only at 24 months, we were limited in our ability to determine whether the reduced HPV prevalence after circumcision was due to a reduced rate of HPV acquisition, an increased rate of HPV clearance, or both.
What does that prove? The part you underlined says right after "this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision" which means it hurts the pro-circumcision side. The part you bolded doesn't show bias by the authors. That was written by the authors so if they were bias they would have just omitted it from their report instead of being honest about it.
Also nice editing there, here's the full paragraph with the part you left out in bold
With respect to the use of circumcision to prevent HPV infection, our study was limited, since it was confined to a subgroup of subjects who were observed both at enrollment and at 24 months. In both the intervention and control groups, these subjects may represent a self-selected population of compliant subjects who could be at lower risk for HPV infection than the general population; this factor could result in an underestimation of the efficacy of male circumcision. Also, since samples were evaluated only at 24 months, we were limited in our ability to determine whether the reduced HPV prevalence after circumcision was due to a reduced rate of HPV acquisition, an increased rate of HPV clearance, or both. Nevertheless, these findings, in conjunction with data from observational studies20,21 and one trial in South Africa,31 demonstrate the efficacy of circumcision in decreasing the prevalence of HPV in adolescent boys and men.
This isn't the only study btw, there are lots similar to it. Here's a quote from wiki
The World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.
I don't understand what you are attempting to achieve with these posts. Circumcision reduces the risks of unprotected sex with HIV-positive people so children should all be circumcised? Are we expecting minors in California to be having rampant unprotected sex with infected African villagers here? Or maybe you're saying circumcision is the only way to reduce the risks of already risky sex with people who are diseased. No wait, that's not true either.
Please clarify how the point you're attempting to make is relevant to a ban on circumcision of minors. These studies you linked, while they provide some interesting medical data, don't really seem relevant to the discussion to me.
That's like the 3rd time in this thread where someone responded to a pro-circumcision post with "So what are you saying, that ALL children should be circumcised?" What the heck...
I think it's obvious what I am saying --> male circumcision has medical benefits. According to the WHO, "There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%." 60% of a usually fatal disease is nothing to shake a stick at.
Or maybe my point was that male circumcision is just mutilation and pointless and disgusting and therefore should only be recommended for Africans.
Children are sexually active before 18 so this law won't be doing them a favor.
I lived 23 yeas non-circumcised, and ill tell you id do it again in a heart beat. Circumcision was the best decision I made. Its so much better cut then not.
Also what about people that have tight forskins and need to get it cut because skin doesnt retract (my reasoning)
On November 29 2010 15:15 Tarbosh wrote: This thread has been a real eye-opener for me. I guess I am alone where in my community uncircumcised penises are somewhat looked down upon. Not in a serious way or anything, more in the manner that the occasional joke will be made about someone being uncircumcised. I've never seen anyone defend their uncircumcised self or be proud of it, until reading this.
On November 29 2010 15:17 Mora wrote: Circumcised penises are more fantastic than uncut ones.
/contribution
gross dude
.... but now im curious. why?
After a shower, they are for the most part the same (though a flacid cut penis is more pleasing to the eye than an ant eater).
However, assuming that you're not going to have a shower right before oral sex everytime you want to engage with said activity... well, you can do an experiment:
Go for a 30 minute walk (or an hour, for better results) with 1 hand palm open, and the other hand in a fist. Lick both palms at the end of your excursion.
I find it sickening that some people insist their newborn is subject to such excruciating pain for the sake of appeasing some magic sky Daddy. Should the individual actually exercise their free will and choose for such an inane thing be done to their genitalia then by all means hack away.
EPT
