You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

reply to post by no special characters

Sad practice and really a scary thought to see so many westerners follow Jewish indoctrination.

Gee religion comes in it again, You need to research my friend if you read above in my last post you will find that many cultures around the world have practice this for thousands of years, and for the record so do Muslims

Wal

I am at work and don't have time to read the entire thread but THANK YOU ofhumandescent, Starred and flagged and I wish I could give you more!
I am 51 years old, thankfully my parents never had myself or my brother circumcised, I have NEVER had the slightest problems with what I was born with and as far as I know neither has my brother.
I honestly believe and always have believed that the circumcision of male babies IS a conspiracy to reduce the sensitivity of the glans and thereby the pleasure of and desire for sex!
Anyone who says that the circumcised penis is more sensitive will have a "hard" job, if you'll excuse the pun, proving it to any uncircumcised male.
How is it possible that the sensitive glans or head of the penis will become more sensitive once the protection of the foreskin has been PERMANENTLY removed. The skin on the head of the penis will then during the course of a mans life continuously be rubbed and scrapped by cloth making it thicker, harder and tougher, I believe, thereby making it "LESS" sensitive!
All it takes is proper education of sons by their parents and a boy will never have a "dirty" penis, seems to me that circumcision is just an "easy out" for LAZY PARENTING!

reply to post by 27jd
33... When I was that age my libido was just starting to calm down a bit. That said, you'd hardly have noticed because I was back at uni & surrounded by curious young women, but I could tell. Things I'd have done in a heartbeat even 2yrs previously started to take a bit of effort. I'd say that by 40 the difference was obvious. Whereas before, whatever I did, I'd be well up for more the next day, these days, if I dont sleep at all, I suffer for it & that affects my 'arouse-ability' considerably. If I'm going to indulge in a proper session nowadays, I generally try to plan ahead a bit so I'm well fed & rested beforehand.
If you're still going strong, then fair play to you, but seriously, dont take it for granted!
Anyway, before I get on to answering the rest of this post & your next reply to me, since you & I are having something of a debate, I wonder if you would be prepared to honestly answer 3 socratic questions?
1) Are you bi-sexual, or have you ever had any homosexual experiences?
2) Approx how many sexual partners have you had?
3) Have you ever watched another man having sex (I dont mean porn, I mean right in front of you)?
I'm not being frivolous here, there are very good reasons why the answers to these questions will have a bearing on what we're talking about.
Naturally, I am prepared to answer any questions you may have for me.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


DICTIONARY
mutilate
Definition
mu·ti·late[ myt'l àyt ] TRANSITIVE VERB
1. destroy body part: to inflict serious injury on the body or a part of the body of a person or animal by removing or destroying parts of it
2. ruin something by removing parts: to damage or spoil something such as a piece of writing or a movie by removing important parts of it
3. damage something seriously: to inflict serious damage on something

So according to an unbiased source circumcision fits the strict definition of mutilation. It removes/destroys a part of a part of the body of a person. The latin derivative literally means to chop off. So we practice self mutilation all the time. We mutilate our hair, our toenails, when we have plastic surgery we seriously mutilate everything in the area. You mutilate the bejeezus out of people in the medical profession all the time. By strict definition we mutilate every time we cut, or remove anything. So I guess there is no difference between saying "My daughter got her ears pierced today." and "I mutilated Sally's earlobes." Is it still mutilation if it doesn't fit the second definition to "ruin by removing parts."? The debate is still very much open about whether or not circumcision ruins anything. Or further yet "to inflict serious damage."

Just because the use of a term is strictly correct doesn't mean it is the best descriptor, unless that term was purposefully used to paint a mental image of your personal bias. To say I must either say I am completely for or against something that is an individual choice that is either made by a person or his caregiver by proxy is absurd. For me to do so would violate the code of ethics I am sworn to uphold. Parents are faced with 18 years of hard choices regarding the health, and happiness of their children. Should they wait until the child is old enough to make that decision? From a stand point of consent, yes. It would be nice for everyone to have a say in everything that happens to them. From the risk aspect, no. It is safer, and much less complicated in the perinatal setting. If you want to view this as hypocrisy, you need a very closed mind. If they wait, and the child decides against it, simply teach the child a very simple step in personal hygiene. If the parents opted to have it done, what right do you have calling them derogatory names because you personally disagree with their choice? I made my personal decisions based on my life, and experiences to that point, and have no regrets. You have no right to impose your view on anyone. It is their right to listen or not, to value or discard. By pigeon holing everyone who doesn't agree with you into a negative slot in your mental bureau alienates them from even considering your side. If the ability to differentiate between emotional, cultural, or religious bias, and intelligent, informed dissent and/or consent is hypocrisy I guess I plead guilty. No one knows all the answers to anything at any given time. We all know in part, and see in part, and that is all anyone has to go on in any given situation. Part of personal growth, and development is learning to value others opinions even when they differ from your own, and that something that challenges your way of thinking is not something to be feared, but explored, and assimilated. To label people who circumcise "mutilators" is brutish, and rude. It wreaks of disdain, and bias. So would labelling people who don't as "gross" or "hygienically deficient" It is the name calling, and unnecessary division I have a problem with. Let's get out of the 7th grade emotionally, and mentally. Healthy debate is necessary, and can be a source of fun, and personal growth, and learning, but underhanded tactics like those employed by most posters is counter-productive, and benefits no one, but the ego of the poster. Most of the time I have to agree with the analogy I read in a signature. "Arguing with someone on the internet is like participating in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded." Doing so still remains a guilt pleasure though, and sometimes I am rewarded with very stimulating, and intelligent debate, this isn't one of those debates.

reply to post by Binder


Would you mind breaking that into paragraphs?

I'm having a difficult time reading that wall of text.

reply to post by 27jd


NO, uncircumcised men do cut their hair and nails or at least most do, that is what we were taught by our parents, but do we cut off our fingers, ears or toes? I don't think so and neither should you!

Originally posted by daggyz
Anything to eventually get angst aimed back at the Jews. I wonder if Hitler mentioned circumcision as a slight against them?

Actually this is a common misconception. There is no archeological evidence to suggest that circumcision was 1st practiced by Jews & there is abundant anthropological evidence to suggest that male genital mutilation is a phase that many societies go through. Therefore, since the Sumarians were around for about 5000yrs, its likely that the practice, in the ME, began with them.
Other examples of MGM include the crushing of 1 testicle & a small cut through the urethra at the base of the penis. Both procedures making it more difficult for a man to impregnate a woman. According to the same theory, circumcision is for the same purpose, in that, by desensitising the penis, any male arousal & subsequent ejaculation will take longer & thus any infidelity would be more difficult to get away with.
I'm not sure how much stock to place in this theory, but it does make perfect sense. Especially when you consider that the cultures which have practiced such mutilations have also been particularly jealous of women's fertility & also, often, subjected them to highly proscribed codes of behaviour.
Personally, I tend to think that, on a physical level, we are evolved/adapted for promiscuity & so to deny those urges is to not only curtail the pleasure we can have in this life, but also, like repressing any other feelings has been proven to do, likely to cause some kind of neurosis. However, a contract (marriage) to have & raise children together is something else entirely. If you cant trust your spouse to keep their end of the bargain, WTF are you doing marrying them?
Of course, some cultures have accrued a view of women as insensate slaves of their reproductive organs who are thus not to be trusted with any important decisions or to keep their word. Pfft! Its just justification after the fact for the horrendous brutality of such societies.

I have no problem that my parents had me circumsized.

Infact, I'm glad they did, because I would have been reluctant at an older age.

Maybe you should ask us how we feel about it before you, a women, say its mutilation.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by frozenspark
If we are born with it, then it is there for a reason.

According to The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus would agree with you.

His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision useful or not?" He said to them, "If it were useful, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother.

Thanks for this Kailassa, I have wondered for a long time if there were any religious references re: anti-circumcision, as I too believe that if you were born with it (and I am not just talking foreskin)it is probably there for a reason and the only reason to remove any part of your body should be for emergency medical reason, ie. Appendicitis, Tonsilitis etc., by the way I am over fifty and still have both of those too.
I am going to read "The Gospel of Thomas"

Originally posted by Binder
Perhaps a good basis for a study. Test the sensitivity of the skin below the glans of a circumsized man, and how much area is how sensitive, and compare it to the foreskin of an uncircumsized man, how much area is how sensitive. Also the age at which circumcision occured if it did. Then we would have empirical evidence of whether or not we are throwing away an erogenous zone(that would be terrible) or if the brain can rewire to make what is left a comparable erogenous zone if the circumcision is done at an early age, or if it also occurs later. This would make for a very good research project if there are any medical students out there looking for material. Two schools of thought on this matter. One school is that the anatomy matters, and the other school is that orgasm as well as any other experience occurs in the brain regardless of anatomy. It would be definitive work.

Many studies have been done, but none show any indication of the circumcised penis rewiring in that matter. On the contrary, the removal of the protective sheath causes keratanisation of the prepuce, and a gradual lessening of sensation.

The most sensitive part of the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar, where there a a few of the ultra-sensitive ganglion clusters left.

ADULT CIRCUMCISION OUTCOMES STUDY

The reduction in erectile function was statistically significant. Some men were unable to have erection after the procedure but even those who were able to have sex with the same partner before and after the procedure reported worsened erectile function. This difference remained significant when adjusted for age and co-morbidities. Some comments were: "Erections are shorter time now." "Penis smaller. Now have erectile dysfunction."

The reported decrease in penile sensitivity that resulted from circumcision bordered on statistical significance. Men who had sex with the same partner before and after circumcision reported greater reduction in penile sensitivity than other men. How men viewed the decreased penile sensitivity differed: "Somewhat less sensitivity helps prolong intercourse." " I had been warned that I would lose sensitivity, but overall, I feel that I was not completely informed."

The all responders group reported worsened erectile function and decreased penile sensation, as well as decrease in sexual activity that was not statistically significant. However, men in the same partner group actually reported increased sexual activity but this too was not statistically significant. The comments were mixed: "No sex drive." "Sex is a lot better."

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis (pdf)

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue

A report published in the British Journal of Urology assessed the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised penis by examining adult foreskins obtained at autopsy. Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.

Circumcision Decreases Sexual Pleasure

A questionnaire was used to study the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision. The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision. There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

Researchers Demonstrate Traumatic Effects of Circumcision

A team of Canadian researchers produced new evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.

The authors believe that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."

Circumcision Study Halted Due to Trauma (Of Researchers)

Researchers found circumcision so traumatic that they ended the study early rather than subject any more infants to the operation without anesthesia. Those infants circumcised without anesthesia experienced not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Up to 96% of infants in some areas of the United States receive no anesthesia during circumcision. No anesthetic currently in use for circumcisions is effective during the most painful parts of the procedure.

There are summaries of many other interesting circumcision studies at:
www.circumcision.org...

reply to post by wiser3



For friggn sake mate. ask ya mates if they have a problem or not, for friggn sake again honestly it doesn't matter about the sexual thing. its how you use it floppy top or helmet head, sleeping bag man what ever. love the person you are , that is the key, you cant love anyone else until you love yourself. the person you are with wouldn't care,

Don't say its about sensitivity because you have your foreskin. I don't .how do you know how I feel. I will tell you it feels great

Gee this thread has turned from religion to some women who thinks they know about a male, ( write a book ) shed loads of stars, heaps of links, what a sad thread, some need to get a life, lots more in life to worry about other then if you have a floppy top or a helmet head,

take care all

Wal

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Clotting is highest in the human body at 8 days after birth.

I have the benefit of seeing this from the other perspective. I was not circumcised. The result was tramatic. The foreskin grows onto the glans of the penis. At the age of four, I had to have four adults hold my arms and legs down so the doctor could cut the foreskin away from the glans. It hurt for a week. No anesthetic. Given a choice, I would rather have been circumcized at 8 days than butchered at 4 years old. I remember it.

It's terrible that was done to you.
It's exactly what is done to a baby. The foreskin did not grow onto the glans, it failed to separate from the glans. Baby boys are born with the foreskin attached to the glans.
Your doctor was an idiot, as there was absolutely no medical reason to inflict this torture on you.

Clinical Practice Guidelines
Normal
The normal foreskin is attached to the glans and is non-retractile in most newborns. Over time the foreskin separates and becomes retractile. The proportion of boys with retractile foreskins is: 40% at 1 year, 90% at 4 years and 99% at 15 years.

* Non-retractile foreskin is a normal variant and needs no intervention. It is different from true phimosis (see below).
* The foreskin should never be forcibly retracted for cleaning. Once it becomes freely retractile naturally then the boy should retract it as part of routine bathing.

Having been through this and remembering what you went through so clearly, you should understand exactly why some of us do not want to inflict the pain you went though on a newborn. It's the same pain, the same butchery. the only difference is that the newborn is even more puzzled and helpless and is strapped to a board instead of held down.

reply to post by pscysm

I was taught that the orgasm was caused by release of tension in the pelvic floor muscles (could be the wrong name or muscle, but around there), so stimulation, although pleasurable is input into the main show.

See, that your 1st comment was to jump straight to "orgasm" speaks volumes. I enjoy a good gaz the same as anyone else, but I also enjoy the physical communication just as much. The time when the conscious mind is sort of anaesthetised, but a part is still there kind of dreamily conscious of whats going on & paying attention to my partner. Its the most real contact we can ever achieve with another person.

You can jump off you soap box now.

Is it?
From what I've heard, you can only feel 4 differences between areas of the vagina: 1) the grip of the opening; 2) the spongy tissue; 3) the gap between that & 4) the cervix; the bit after that feels the same as 3. Right?
I have a piece of skin which feels minute differences in the texture of those various bits & also tiny fluctuations in her muscle tension. This is useful info when deciding whether to take her there straight away or to cool it a bit & tease so she gets off better later. It also helps in adjusting the angle, depth & motion of penetration, so that no matter how she moves I can persistently hit the spot that she responds most favourably to. Of course it also allows me to maximise my own pleasure without irritating her too (I like the tickle on my glans & foreskin as they rub her cervix, but some women find this uncomfortable, so I just switch the angle of dangle so I'm getting enough off the spongy bit to get off).
So yeah, I'll get off my soapbox... just as soon as you admit that you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you're missing the sensory organ that would give you the same sensory input. In the meantime, since this thread has been open, hundreds of boys have been deprived of real sex.

reply to post by rakkasansct


I don't know about the reduced risk of prostate cancer but it certainly reduces the risk of cervical cancer enormously.

reply to post by stumason


Actually 27jd is correct and may I add that in African nations where circumcism is common, HIV is greatly reduced.

reply to post by Binder
I know you dont because you couldn't. The only time the inside of my foreskin is properly exposed to touch is when I'm erect. If I become so at an inopportune moment, I have to rearrange my tackle to stop it moving about whilst I try to think of something else, or go for a cigarette & chill. If I had to deal with that all the time, I'd have a very strange gait! Until, of course, the nerves became desensitised.

I can't, and wouldn't argue about sensual experience. As you are correct that neither set has the frame of referrence to refute, or confirm either way.

Well, as I've imputed, I do have much more experience on this subject to impart, which, as I stated earlier, is no Kinsey research, but is a considerable body of knowledge nonetheless. However, I've asked 27jd some socratic questions, so, in the spirit of good debate, I'll wait to see if/what he replies before going on.
As far as studies go, 1 of the previously posted links was to some data obtained from mono-filament fine touch tests done on cut & uncut men on the skin behind the glans. Apparently the circumcision scar is the most sensitive part on a cut man! I think it said that the foreskin of an uncut man in the same position was 5 times more sensitive.

Really tho, do we actually need more scientific data? I've got particularly protruding ankle bones & I've spent a large part of my life wearing military para-boots. Is it any wonder that the skin over the bones is almost completely numb? I suggest not. So, even if we disregard all the anecdotal evidence of what circumcision does to men (epitomised in the joke I recounted earlier), then logic ought to be enough to realise that skin that gets chafed loses sensation, especially if it would ordinarily be protected.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Originally posted by SLaPPiE
I don't know one cut man that wants his skin back.

You do now.

You know another. I've been in this club for years now.

reply to post by stumason


Dude, did you read the link at ALL? I'm guessing not, since it clearly states all of the info is backed by peer reviewed studies (which means doctors do the research and studies, publish literature on it, and other doctors reviewed it, and agree). It's funny, that you sit there, not being a doctor, proclaim that "it's utter garbage", but thanks for using the word garbage as opposed to rubbish. Oh, and also that somehow we have more STD's here in the states, that's funny. Maybe we just get more sex here because we don't sport doggy penises? They're also prevelant in the UK though, maybe we just didn't have to wait so long to get checked out with the difference in our healthcare systems...

The UK's Health Protection Agency attribute the rise in STD diagnoses in recent years to increased rates of testing, improved diagnostic methods, and an increase in unsafe sexual behaviour among young people.1
www.avert.org...

But don't let all these facts get in the way of your need to disagree with doctors, based on your non-medical opinion, and the fact that you must feel you have to defend your extra skin. Oh, and sorry to hurt your feelings about the oral hygiene bit, Austin, lol. But have a go at us Americans, please. I find it funny, since I don't fit the stereotypes at all. I'm sure you'll throw out fat, lazy, McDonalds eating, yada yada. Not me at all, just as I'm sure you have great teeth, not sure why you don't have a sense of humor though...

reply to post by Bunken Drum


Sounds like you may have a problem with testosterone. It starts to decline around your mid thirties, perhaps start taking DHEA, it's a precursor hormone that will convert to whichever hormone your body is lacking. I haven't noticed the slightest decline in my libido, probably because I excercise regularly and eat the way I was designed to eat (paleo). I don't take anything for granted, but I feel better now than I did when I was 21, in SO many ways, thanks to my paleo lifestyle.

Anyway, before I get on to answering the rest of this post & your next reply to me, since you & I are having something of a debate, I wonder if you would be prepared to honestly answer 3 socratic questions?
1) Are you bi-sexual, or have you ever had any homosexual experiences?
2) Approx how many sexual partners have you had?
3) Have you ever watched another man having sex (I dont mean porn, I mean right in front of you)?

1. No, and no. I have nothing against it at all, I'm just not wired that way. I believe those types of desires, like so much in our bodies, is hormone related. I have high testosterone levels, always have. If you listen to a gay man's voice, and a woman who is taking steroids, you'll find their voices are very similar. The woman still has higher estrogen levels than the average man but higher test levels than the average woman, and I believe that gay men also have higher estrogen levels than the average man and higher test levels than the average woman. And their sexual preferences are also very similar, women bodybuilders don't usually turn gay, they still desire men, just moreso since they have high test levels. I think it has to do with the estrogen, but that's just a theory of mine.

2. I honestly haven't kept count, if I had to guess I'd say around 50ish.

3. I haven't really watched, no. I've been to swingers clubs where there were others having sex, but again, watching others just isn't my thing.

I think I see where you're going with the questions though. Perhaps you're going to tell us that you've had homosexual experiences with "cut" men, and they are yawning and not feeling anything the whole time, while you pass out, and offer that as the point of reference you have to state that circumcision affects sensitivity? Sorry, I don't buy it. As I've said, there are many things that affect pleasure, and libido, besides a little extra skin.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


...

Because Getting your kids circumcised totally means you beat your wife and kids and are an abusive parent.

Suuure.