Poll: Circumcision - What is your opinion?

[Custard_Angel]

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.

And male circumcisions started to try to get men not to masturbate, and it looks really barbaric. What's the difference?

The current system of most countries allows male circumcision and outlaws female circumcision. This is the way things should be.

BS. It's painful, it's completely unnecessary and all babies should have the right to not be mutilated when there's no medical need.

Eh... It's a cosmetic surgery just like any other. Do or don't. No one is making you.

Also, I think you'll find that male circumcision stems from the ancient Hebrews as a reminder of the testament between God and man. All the stuff people say about masturbation and whatnot may be partly true but its religious roots are clear.

 

[xDarc]

As I mentioned, a baby will never know any differently as an adult...

I've got a fucked up circumcision and I'm not happy about it. Didn't have a choice. Now my scrotum connects half way up my shaft so I could gain a minor reduction in risk and less fuss over maintenance. Worth it? No.

This is actually a pretty common problem. They often take too much skin and scrotal skin gets pulled onto the shaft as you grow into it. Some have it worse than others. Growing as a boy, erections made me cry because they hurt that bad. Felt like it was going to tear itself open and my dad would just wave me off and tell me it's just "muscle cramps" and to quit being a baby.

Pros and cons aside, newborn or even child circumcision is absolutely unnecessary. There is no risk of penile cancer or STDs, they're kids. You are also likely to have a much better result once you are more or less fully grown.

I don't think people fearing surgical procedures should fuck it up for every newborn baby boy who gets a bad circ job.

 

[Verlander]

At the end of the day, the foreskin is a throwback to an earlier age, a vestigial organ if you will, like the vermiform appendix, parts of the coccyx and ear muscles.

/thread

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

\thread

In between the "some believe..."'s and the "it is possible..."'s, I somewhat lost the point of what this is trying to prove. All contemporary sciences are at a stalemate as to whether or not there is any difference to the penis, and as someone who has been both hooded and circumcised, let me tell you that there is no difference. No trouble in penetration, no sensory deprivation, and no nothing.

Shallow and pathetic men just love to imagine that circumcision makes you, in some way, less of a person, and that it's wrong, because they are all ruled by a Freudian fear of their own penis. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better about their own short comings? Who knows. All I know is that no absolute ruling has been found, and most blokes seem to scared to properly tackle the subject and deal with the fact that it makes little difference.

 

[Carlston]

I'm not, I get full feeling during sex, why is it easier to clean? I wash it fine every time with skin.

But when you wash, you use soap, right? And that soap can dry out the skin, which causes it to crack. Cracked skin is an entry point for bacteria.

The AMA said there is a medical benefit, but it is not significant enough to recommend everyone do it.

As such, I think it should be left to the parents, who are routinely asked to make medical choices for their kids. It seems like the only logical choice.

Not sure what soap your referring to, I've used many different types , but must admit never had that problem. Then again I also don't soap up 20 times. It's not a logical choice, it's a lazy choice... instead of teaching a kid proper hygiene you just chop off body part? They might as well take off the kids feet and elbows next.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I'm not, I get full feeling during sex, why is it easier to clean? I wash it fine every time with skin.

But when you wash, you use soap, right? And that soap can dry out the skin, which causes it to crack. Cracked skin is an entry point for bacteria.

The AMA said there is a medical benefit, but it is not significant enough to recommend everyone do it.

As such, I think it should be left to the parents, who are routinely asked to make medical choices for their kids. It seems like the only logical choice.

Not sure what soap your referring to...

All soap.

Since you clearly didn't understand my post, I'll explain it again.

Soap dries your skin. It does so by removing fat, the fat your body makes naturally in order to keep you skin soft. If it can't do this, it's not soap.

Since soap dries your skin, washing your foreskin will dry it out, causing it to crack, which is an entry point for bacteria. When this happens, you become sick. Not your penis becomes sick. YOU, your entire body becomes sick. And unless you have a full body check up to test for the infection's entry point into your body (which is something that's not even done in most autopsies) you will never know how you got sick. So by cleaning your foreskin, you will increase chances of certain infections. And don't tell me it's never happened to you, because you wouldn't know.

However, people who have done the medical testing, the AMA, say that there is a medical benefit to circumcision.

It's not a logical choice, it's a lazy choice... instead of teaching a kid proper hygiene you just chop off body part? They might as well take off the kids feet and elbows next.

And this is a sure sign that your argument has no basis in logic.

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

CONS:
Loss of about 40-50% pleasure during sex.

Prove it.

Seriously.

Prove there is a loss of pleasure during sex.

How would you even design an experiment to test that?

Easy.

Let´s say you...

You put on a blindfold and wear it every second of every day. At the same time, you are being tested to determine how fast you can recognize braille letters. Do you know how long it takes for the parts of your brain normally used for vision to take over for touch? Less than 72 hours. This is not my speaking out of my ass because I have a point I want to make. This is actually scientifically proven through real experiments. (Saw it on an episode of Scientific American Frontiers.)

Again, you don't have an experiment that can test this claim. You have a hypothesis to explain a result that you haven't proven happens in the first place.

You need an actual experiment that can test the before and after effects, one that can be done with a control group, and one that can be done double-blind. Good luck with that.

In the meantime, I have actual experimental data that shows the brain can rewire itself to deal with changes in stimulus. So just saying, "The nerve endings are desensitized, therefore it is less pleasurable." is not enough. Hell, you haven't even proven that they are desensitized.

Circumcision is the same principle. Stop wearing shoes (foreskin) and the skin on your feat(Dick) will grow thicker and make you more resistant, but less sensitive.

By the way, in your analogy we are still wearing shoes. It's called underwear. That's what's used to protect our penis from wear and tear of running through grasslands while being chased by a predator. Also, we no longer run through grasslands while being chased by a predator, so the penis is not taking nearly as much damage as it did in the past.

The foreskin is very much like the appendix in that case.

but there is no doubt that it does lower sensitivite, and therefor, pleasure.

Again, there's no evidence that this is true. I've yet to even see an experiment that could test this claim.

 

[gh0ti]

I'm amazed by the number of people defending circumcision on the grounds that it somehow makes you immune to infection of the penis or development of penile cancer. There is no medical basis for that at all. In my own country, Britain, circumcision is exceedingly rare (around 6%) and we're not all dying prematurely from dirty foreskins.

The truth is, most of the perceived "dirt" that accumulates under a foreskin is a natural bodily secretion - smegma - a completely harmless (EDIT: And easily removed) substance that aids lubrication during sex.

It's also clearly a cultural issue, rather than a practical one. Circumcision is a minority practice on a global scale, and besides the United States, few developed countries have really embraced it. Do you guys really think you know something the rest of us don't?

For my own part, I am actually not too bothered by the issue, though I am against circumcision where there is not a specific medical justification.

 

[incal11]

At the end of the day, the foreskin is a throwback to an earlier age, a vestigial organ if you will, like the vermiform appendix, parts of the coccyx and ear muscles.

/thread

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

\thread

In between the "some believe..."'s and the "it is possible..."'s, I somewhat lost the point of what this is trying to prove. All contemporary sciences are at a stalemate as to whether or not there is any difference to the penis, and as someone who has been both hooded and circumcised, let me tell you that there is no difference. No trouble in penetration, no sensory deprivation, and no nothing.

There is one instance of "some believe" with a source, and there's other sources about that point. I have not found instances of "it is possible". You just plainly refused to read it on account of your personal experience.
I don't know you're reason for getting circumcised, whether by choice or necessity I'm sorry to say your glans' sensitivity will decline over time, it definitely is proven. As well as is proven the role of the prepuce, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Shallow and pathetic men just love to imagine that circumcision makes you, in some way, less of a person, and that it's wrong, because they are all ruled by a Freudian fear of their own penis. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better about their own short comings? Who knows. All I know is that no absolute ruling has been found, and most blokes seem to scared to properly tackle the subject and deal with the fact that it makes little difference.

If I ever was afraid of my own penis I got over it. I don't think less of someone who is circumcised, I pity those who had this decision made for them when they were infants.
I'm not afraid to tackle the subject, I gave you the absolute ruling. Go read it properly this time, if there's an ounce of honesty in you.

 

[Verlander]

At the end of the day, the foreskin is a throwback to an earlier age, a vestigial organ if you will, like the vermiform appendix, parts of the coccyx and ear muscles.

/thread

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

\thread

In between the "some believe..."'s and the "it is possible..."'s, I somewhat lost the point of what this is trying to prove. All contemporary sciences are at a stalemate as to whether or not there is any difference to the penis, and as someone who has been both hooded and circumcised, let me tell you that there is no difference. No trouble in penetration, no sensory deprivation, and no nothing.

There is one instance of "some believe" with a source, and there's other sources about that point. I have not found instances of "it is possible". You just plainly refused to read it on account of your personal experience.
I don't know you're reason for getting circumcised, whether by choice or necessity I'm sorry to say your glans' sensitivity will decline over time, it definitely is proven. As well as is proven the role of the prepuce, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Shallow and pathetic men just love to imagine that circumcision makes you, in some way, less of a person, and that it's wrong, because they are all ruled by a Freudian fear of their own penis. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better about their own short comings? Who knows. All I know is that no absolute ruling has been found, and most blokes seem to scared to properly tackle the subject and deal with the fact that it makes little difference.

If I ever was afraid of my own penis I got over it. I don't think less of someone who is circumcised, I pity those who had this decision made for them when they were infants.
I'm not afraid to tackle the subject, I gave you the absolute ruling. Go read it properly this time, if there's an ounce of honesty in you.

I did read it properly. I have also read many more recent documents saying that tests are inconclusive.

There have been many investigations into this, at many different times, and many more recently than your source. The official stance on it is that there is no conclusive proof either way. Some single research has found that it does, like your source, and some has found that it doesn't. Hence the inconclusive. From my personal experience, and many years of having mine, NOTHING has changed. It's not some ball of scar tissue down there, if that's what your impression of it is. It's a normal, functioning penis, that is slightly improved actually.

I have to be honest, when reading your source when it goes on about impotence, lack of erectile functions, premature ejaculation and suchlike, I lost any kind of respect for it. The sheer quantity of people who have been circumcised and don't suffer from any of those problems is monumental, and the amount of hooded men who do suffer from those problems kinda makes those points moot. It's like saying "you ahve skin, therefore you will probably suffer from skin cancer". Sure, it's possible, but correlation does not equal causation, as every scientist should know.

And as for this:

"Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner.8 16 The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.41 45 55 Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner.24 28 62"

No. Just no. Wrong and wrong.

Dude, I don't disagree with you not wanting children to be circumcised by parents for no reason, but the fact remains that in Europe, this procedure is used for medical reasons far more than any other. Few men do it for anything else, and there isn't a very large Jewish community in Europe (they had a slight setback in the 40's). Honestly, I don't think that any circumcised person needs your pity, and the fact that you want to bestow it on people without any true knowledge of what they are going through is simply arrogant and patronising. I can't tell you what to think though

 

[Sandernista]

If you can't cum during sex because you lost sensitivity you need to stop fapping.

Uhm, I'm sorry, what?

OOPS D:

TYPO!

 

[Lionsfan]

Holy Shit......I never realized that the Escapist cared so much about the tip of a penis....

OT: I don't have a problem with it, I had mine done when I was little and I don't think it really makes a big difference either way, not in today's culture anyway.

Loss of about 40-50% pleasure during sex.

And that's complete bullshit. There's no way to actually prove one way of another whether pleasure is lost or not. We can make guesses but can't prove it

 

[incal11]

And that's complete bullshit. There's no way to actually prove one way of another whether pleasure is lost or not. We can make guesses but can't prove it

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

I did read it properly. I have also read many more recent documents saying that tests are inconclusive.

Did you not only read the whole text but it's own sources ? Did you find that some or all of those sources do not obey scientificity ?
Also, if I went through the effort of showing you my sources I would apreciate you do the same.

There have been many investigations into this, at many different times, and many more recently than your source. The official stance on it is that there is no conclusive proof either way. Some single research has found that it does, like your source, and some has found that it doesn't. Hence the inconclusive.

Lots of weasel words here.

From my personal experience, and many years of having mine, NOTHING has changed. It's not some ball of scar tissue down there, if that's what your impression of it is. It's a normal, functioning penis, that is slightly improved actually.

I'm not making stuff up about your penis' appearance, where did you get that idea ?
It does not matter if you did not notice that the prepuce is erogenous before, it is nonetheless, and without it you will loose sensitivity over time. Damn, that's why it's such a tricky subject, so hard to discuss this kind of topic with someone directly concerned.
Ok, don't feel bad because of what I say, despite my clumsiness this is not my goal. We can concentrate on the less raunchy points of the subject however. Like how this operation is not needed and is actually a source of risks...

I have to be honest, when reading your source when it goes on about impotence, lack of erectile functions, premature ejaculation and suchlike, I lost any kind of respect for it. The sheer quantity of people who have been circumcised and don't suffer from any of those problems is monumental, and the amount of hooded men who do suffer from those problems kinda makes those points moot. It's like saying "you ahve skin, therefore you will probably suffer from skin cancer". Sure, it's possible, but correlation does not equal causation, as every scientist should know.

The thing is all of those are proven additional risks. Sure the majority won't have any problem, but this highlights how risky on top of being unnecessary circumcision really is.
Good for you if everythig went well, it does not justify doing it on infants. Especially not on the ground that it is an "obsolete organ", which it isn't.

"Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner.8 16 The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.41 45 55 Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner.24 28 62"

No. Just no. Wrong and wrong.

sigh, sources ? Other than yourself I mean. Though you could try asking your girlfriend .

We agree that it is wrong to do it on infants for non medical reason, but I do not include "precaution", and "cleanliness" in those reasons. Do we agree on this too ?

 

[Verlander]

We agree that it is wrong to do it on infants for non medical reason, but I do not include "precaution", and "cleanliness" in those reasons. Do we agree on this too ?

I think what we agree on is that for non-medical procedures it isn't necessary. If anyone if stupid enough to have surgery for cleanliness, they should do it as an adult, the same as other cosmetic procedures. In fact, I think that it should only be done for medical procedures throughout your entire life. I don't agree with cosmetic surgery on a personal level, and I think that surgery in such an area can be a life changing risk (more so that a nose job, for instance).

What we disagree on is negative effects caused by the circumcision. While they are possible, I don't think that they are a serious enough risk to tar circumcision with.

Anyway, this conversation will continue to go around in circles. It's been a good chat, even if we don't see eye to eye. At least you provide an intellectual conversation, I've heard people claiming that circumcision sends babies into shock that they never recover from ¬¬

 

[incal11]

What we disagree on is negative effects caused by the circumcision. While they are possible, I don't think that they are a serious enough risk to tar circumcision with.

Even if the risks are not that serious it is still at least something that makes a number of people's lives uselessly miserable. That it's so widespread makes it kind of a tragedy.
That said I'm willing to accept that some find it a "cosmetic" improvement, as long as it's their choices and they don't push it on other without mentioning those risks.

Anyway, this conversation will continue to go around in circles. It's been a good chat, even if we don't see eye to eye. At least you provide an intellectual conversation, I've heard people claiming that circumcision sends babies into shock that they never recover from ¬¬

I'm glad this ends well, good to meet someone reasonable every once in a while.