Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?
- Thread starter awesomeClaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Circumcision is an outdated medical practice from a time when people did not know any better. This practice was then incorporated into religious ceremony where the faithful believe God wishes for this offending piece of your body to be cut of and disposed of.
If people wish to hack it of, It should be there choice to make. It will of course hurt a lot more when he is an adult, but why not suffer a little for your faith? Surely a little pain and sacrifice is worth a few God points to the man upstairs? A wise investment for thy divine future.
If people wish to hack it of, It should be there choice to make. It will of course hurt a lot more when he is an adult, but why not suffer a little for your faith? Surely a little pain and sacrifice is worth a few God points to the man upstairs? A wise investment for thy divine future.
This was a really tough decision when my son was born last July, but we decided to go ahead and do it. The choice was neutral medically speaking, and religion did not have any effect on the decision. It came down to fitting in. Given that most Americans (of which I am one) have this done, it would a surprise if it wasn't done.
That said, if someone came up to me and said that they didn't have this done on their son, I would respect their choice just as much as if they had it done.
In terms of waiting until you are an adult. I'm glad I got snipped when I was an infant, because the pain and agony of that would be something I don't want lodged in my memory. Where as an infant will not genuinely remember that.
That said, if someone came up to me and said that they didn't have this done on their son, I would respect their choice just as much as if they had it done.
In terms of waiting until you are an adult. I'm glad I got snipped when I was an infant, because the pain and agony of that would be something I don't want lodged in my memory. Where as an infant will not genuinely remember that.
It's not so much for religious reasons, indeed the New Testament repeatedly says that it's unnecessary (there was some debate in the 1st century church as to how much of the Jewish traditions that non-Jewish converts should observe). Although some did believe, quite wrongly, that it prevents masturbation.Snor said:
Around the beginning of the 20th century, there was some belief that there were medical benefits and it prevents disease. Most of their reasoning was wrong, we were still in the early stages of learning about microorganisms and infection.
All that said, there are legitimate medical reasons to have it done. Mine was medical and given what that was like, I would err on the side of circumcising.
The appendix once served a purpose in our history as a species. The foreskin must have once/still does serve it's own purpose. You can't just go hacking bits off of yourself unless there is a medical reason. The cleanliness business, come on it takes less than a minute, how lazy can you get?trollnystan said:
Unless there's a serious medical condition I wouldn't let you cut off my little toe, let alone my penis so get that scalpel away from me!
Pros:
1. Allows people to not wash their penis for weeks without smegma buildup. This is good if you wander in a desert and never take baths.
2. Traditionally accepted
Cons:
1. Possibility of erectile dysfunction
2. Loss of sensitivity on glans
3. Loss of nerves by direct removal of foreskin
4. Uncut penises are naturally "ribbed" due to the foreskin, a circumcised penis doesn't provide a woman with this natural stimulation
5. Latest research indicates that the medical benefits of circumcision are negligible
The truth is that most males in the world are not circumcised. The largest population that is circumcised are Muslims followed distantly by Christians. The best indicator of circumcision is religious tradition and not scientific literacy.
1. Allows people to not wash their penis for weeks without smegma buildup. This is good if you wander in a desert and never take baths.
2. Traditionally accepted
Cons:
1. Possibility of erectile dysfunction
2. Loss of sensitivity on glans
3. Loss of nerves by direct removal of foreskin
4. Uncut penises are naturally "ribbed" due to the foreskin, a circumcised penis doesn't provide a woman with this natural stimulation
5. Latest research indicates that the medical benefits of circumcision are negligible
The truth is that most males in the world are not circumcised. The largest population that is circumcised are Muslims followed distantly by Christians. The best indicator of circumcision is religious tradition and not scientific literacy.
Here in Nova Scotia, I believe I read that 8% of males were circumcised. I am in the 92% that isn't.
I answered the poll "no strong opinions", but after lurking a bit, I've gotta go with the majority in that it's acceptable if there is an issue that needs to be treated with circumcision. The religious reasons are probably actually health reasons. Was it stated in Leviticus? That book of the Bible sounded like a bunch of rules, but they were really just strictly enforced health guidelines. Back then, the risk of diseases from things was much greater, if I'm not mistaken. While today those risks are still present, they're diminished, and not threatening to you or your community unless you let it be. (This is also, I believe, the reason for the whole "not lie with another man" bit, because we all know about the thing with the Red Cross today, but that's another thread)
Personally dealing with a bit of a bound foreskin myself, but it's not to the point where it's that bad. Something that feels like it could be stretched out, I'd rather not have to remove it. I want to have kids, and if the subject of the males getting circumcised comes up, I'd probably opt to wait and see what happens.
I answered the poll "no strong opinions", but after lurking a bit, I've gotta go with the majority in that it's acceptable if there is an issue that needs to be treated with circumcision. The religious reasons are probably actually health reasons. Was it stated in Leviticus? That book of the Bible sounded like a bunch of rules, but they were really just strictly enforced health guidelines. Back then, the risk of diseases from things was much greater, if I'm not mistaken. While today those risks are still present, they're diminished, and not threatening to you or your community unless you let it be. (This is also, I believe, the reason for the whole "not lie with another man" bit, because we all know about the thing with the Red Cross today, but that's another thread)
Personally dealing with a bit of a bound foreskin myself, but it's not to the point where it's that bad. Something that feels like it could be stretched out, I'd rather not have to remove it. I want to have kids, and if the subject of the males getting circumcised comes up, I'd probably opt to wait and see what happens.
Male circumcision has no purpose if you obey standards of hygiene. All that stuff about infection and whatnot is easy to bypass by scrubbing in the shower. Not difficult at all.
Female circumcision has only ever existed as a method of enforcing female faithfulness by removing much of the pleasure of sex and hence, removing the "want" to have an affair. Many countries have even declared it an act of barbarism.
The current system of most countries allows male circumcision and outlaws female circumcision. This is the way things should be.
As long as it remains an entirely elective procedure, it should be allowable.
As for children, I prefer the idea of it being entirely elective, but what the fuck ever. I wasn't circumcised, I have never wanted to be circumcised and I would never circumcise my child. That's fine for me, but may not be fine for someone else. It's not my place to tell anybody else that they're doing things wrong. Even about female circumcision, which I find utterly distasteful, if someone thinks it is the greatest thing ever, as far as I'm concerned, they should be free to pursue their own values in their own way.
Female circumcision has only ever existed as a method of enforcing female faithfulness by removing much of the pleasure of sex and hence, removing the "want" to have an affair. Many countries have even declared it an act of barbarism.
The current system of most countries allows male circumcision and outlaws female circumcision. This is the way things should be.
As long as it remains an entirely elective procedure, it should be allowable.
As for children, I prefer the idea of it being entirely elective, but what the fuck ever. I wasn't circumcised, I have never wanted to be circumcised and I would never circumcise my child. That's fine for me, but may not be fine for someone else. It's not my place to tell anybody else that they're doing things wrong. Even about female circumcision, which I find utterly distasteful, if someone thinks it is the greatest thing ever, as far as I'm concerned, they should be free to pursue their own values in their own way.
"lasts longer" have actually never been proven (look up orgasm controlawesomeClaw said:
. that is more an individual thing, and you can hold a penis erect for a pretty good time wheter you have foreskin or not. (above 20 minuttes, and 20 minuttes of sex just gets kinda boring..) btw for info on orgasms go read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm#Achieving_orgasm
Also you said you have to get a circusition if your foreskin is to tight, and well you don't have to but some people can have a painfull experience during sex. (there is also some medical oil of sorts that maks your foreskin a bit more elastic over time which can also help, which is the recomended aproach by most doctors.)
Also link to scientific proof about the diseases? why would men have foreskin in the first place if having it made you more prone to diseases? would not evolution have removed it by now?
Finaly: your view on female circusition? if any grown woman want one shure go ahead, but a female circusition do not have any pros for the woman only cons, one of which is reduced sexual pleasure.
It is child abuse. Any parents that have had their child circumcised without any valid medical reason should have their children taken away from them.
All of the reasons that I keep seeing that are in support of circumcision are all terrible reasons.
All of the people who want to circumcise their children because they themselves are circumcised, do not deserve to have children.
Circumcision is a lie and needs to be stopped.(unless it is medically nesessary, or the person is old enough to make up their own mind)
All of the reasons that I keep seeing that are in support of circumcision are all terrible reasons.
All of the people who want to circumcise their children because they themselves are circumcised, do not deserve to have children.
Circumcision is a lie and needs to be stopped.(unless it is medically nesessary, or the person is old enough to make up their own mind)
True, but I argue it will also be your mistake. Circumcision is pointless and damageable, the point about sexual pleasure is all but ridiculous, and it is not the only one :MelziGurl said:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
I command your open mindedness, but apathy toward something that is objectively proven to be harmful isn't the best attitude. I say tell them, prove them they are wrong. Even if most won't listen there's always a few who will over time.Custard_Angel said:
I would be preeeeetty mad at my parents if they had circumsiced me. i hate how all these myths about circumsicion are taken as facts. ._.incal11 said:
America is just about the only country tho, in europe it's not really that common. unless it's for religious reasons.
Thats actually not related with being circumcised or not, but to the fact a big portion of uncircumcised man not keeping proper hygiene of the penis. Can easily be solved if you train your forskin to be more retractable. Many men cant pull it back, and all sort of dirtiness and bugs stay there to the point it gets carcinogenic.gwiddison said:
So, because you think that it looks better, it should me mandatory? That's outha be the most stupid thing I read since I read the last guy in this thread saying it.tehroc said:
This discussion is kinda pointless. While yes, perhaps parents shouldn't do that to their kids, it's a kind of trival thing. Also, if you ban it. People are still going to do it but with unclean tools and then the pure boys might actully get harmed for real. Kinda like abortion.
I won't be doing it to my kids if they don't need it though. Yet to see a valid reason.