Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

 

[JoJo]

Okay, how about this though. I'm circumcised, and I don't want to be. It's considered absolutely horrendous to circumcise a female, so why should it be any different to circumcise a male?

Yes, I understand physically, the two operations are very different. But my point is this: you are mutilating a child. Your child very well may not agree with your reasoning for that mutilation when it grows up. So don't cut your kid.

That isn't a particularly good comparison, female circumcision usually leaves the child unable unable to enjoy sex when they are older and has a higher risk of infection and complications as it usually involves cutting off the clitoris as opposed to the foreskin. Male circumcision doesn't have nearly as many negative consequences and so can't be compared, though there is a valid debate that the child should make their own choice, I tend to lean more on the parent's side really since it isn't that disadvantageous to lose a foreskin.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Circumcision IS an amputation - how can you cut off a body part and not call it so? And it IS mutilation - as it ruins the body's natural appearance and hampers its normal functions.

See, I tend to agree with this nice fella named Hadrian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian], who had some political sway once, and thought it was a bit of a bad thing. (By "some political sway" I mean he was the friggin' emperor of Rome, and by "a bit of a bad thing", I mean he made it a capital crime.)

 

[isometry]

The guys who were circumcised have a vested interest in not viewing circumcision as bad, for the sake of their self-image. I don't think parents should be able to do that to their kids.

 

[ks1234]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Long story short... I can jerk off just fine without my foreskin.
I have absolutely ZERO problems getting a boner, penetrating a woman isn't hard either (unless she is super tight... but that's an entirely different issue), as for 'reducing female orgasms'... MOST women don't orgasm from penetration anyway... but when I have gotten the ones that do, well... there's no issue there either.
So, your argument sucks. lol

 

[agentorange98]

If we say no circumcision we're basically saying it's illegal to observe religious tradition and that's a slippery slope, I mean it could easily turn into making it illegal to build mosques or own a bible

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

snip

Right and wrong. I was being a bit harsh (while trying to avoid bias) to make a point. Yes people have died from circumcision. But people have died from not being circumcised as well (probably before the technology to do it cleanly arrived people would die because they never had the proceedure as a child).

Pleasure is a measurable value but only subjectively. A person has his own scale and has no way of comparing it to somebody elses' scale so the top on my scale might be lower than yours but it makes not difference to me, I would never be able to distinguish. If I could take a pleasure o meter and measure it it still would not make a difference because I could not experience a greater level even if I knew it existed. A completely non objective factor here.

I didn't say pleasure I said sensitivity they are different. Pleasure and pain are relative how sensitive something is however, is not subjective. What happens is the penis head is no longer lubricated and the skin becomes slightly thinker and there is some nerve damage all reducing sensitivity along with reports from adults who have been circumcised. It is less sensitive because it is less reactive than it would have been or was otherwise.

Unfortunately semantics can get in the way with words that are used interchangeably in general use so yes while stuff like pain and pleasure are relative how sensitive a spot is depends on nerve endings which is something can be quantified. Say for example you could take a punch to the lower/centre stomach but I couldn't as I had a lower threshold of pain. However, we would both still take a punch to that area over a knuckle punch to the solar plexus as it would be a more sensitive area to a strike like that. Not the best example but at 01:20 it is all I have.

 

[viking97]

does it really make a difference? all i know is not having one reduces risk of cancer, but having one makes it easier to masturbate.

having been circumcised, i'm kinda curious to how fapping without any lube would feel...

You still use lube.

Claiming to live the life of a "normal" penis owner when circumcised is unfortunate. It's only normal because you know no better. You don't have my scorn - you have my pity. I wish your parents hadn't been so narrow-minded. I wish they hadn't desired to harm their child for their own reasons. But what I wish means nothing, because you're the one living with the damage.

umm, pardon? i don't feel particularly damaged, thank you very much.

and kindly don't argue with things i didn't say, i find that irritating.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

It should be the kids choice.
I'm circumcised. Sometimes I'm happy for it, sometimes not.

I was circumcised while I was 2 years old. I had some medical problems and they had to do it. But even if there where not those problems, my parents would have done it because of religious reasons.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Not really. If you want the debate to be that then it is or you can actually look at genuine cons and pros about both situations which I have linked to many of them near the top of the page. All circumcision does is make hygiene easier unless it is necessary and creates other problems like more difficult penetration, more difficult masturbation, higher rates of erectile dysfunction, etc.

I'm circumcised and I've never had any problems with any of those. From what I've seen here, the uncircumcised group is disgusted with the concept of circumcision and finding whatever online survey, Fox News report, or urban legend they can dig up to prove their case, while the circumcised group seems to have no complaints at all and are perfectly comfortable with it.

To my perspective, that says one group is confident with itself, and the other is fear-mongering.

 

[n00beffect]

Well, speaking as a person who's had circumcision (circumcision-ee?), I can say that indeed, it is better in terms of hygine (and only that, really). How do I know? Well, I had mine when I was about second grade, and thank fuck I didn't get it because of simplicistic religious reasons. I had a... Well, let's call it a skin condition, I won't get into it, but circumcision was my only way out of it. Yeah, it was painful as hell, and I still remember it, for all the suffering it brought me, and continued to bring me until my wound healed-up. But, in the end, was it worth it? Considering that there are less virtues to it, then vices, I'd say no. Yes, it's more hygenic, but on the other hand it's a pretty fucked-up expirience, and it really brands you for life. And from what I've heard, people with circumcision tend to feel less pleasure from sex, due to having the upper skin of their penis removed, and that's where most of the receptors are - so, to hell with that! Plus, people who do it for a religious reason, are idiotic mongrols in my opinion, because submiting your child to the horror, especially if he's old enough to remember it, is on the same level as actually scarring him for life, and I don't believe in that whole 'whatever doesn't kill you blah blah' bullshit - it's true, but whatever doesn't kill you, has gotten pretty close to that, and that's never good! And even if it isn't self-aware enough to know why his pee-pee is missing a topl layer, it's still pretty emberassing, and once they find out... Let's just say it'll closely resemble the feeling of finding out that you're adopted (not that I know what that feeling is, but shut-up, made my point).

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Long story short... I can jerk off just fine without my foreskin.
I have absolutely ZERO problems getting a boner, penetrating a woman isn't hard either (unless she is super tight... but that's an entirely different issue), as for 'reducing female orgasms'... MOST women don't orgasm from penetration anyway... but when I have gotten the ones that do, well... there's no issue there either.
So, your argument sucks. lol

It is not an argument it is a scientifically tested and if you bothered to go back to page 3 you would have seen all the links.

I said it decrease erectile dysfunction rates so unless you are in your 60s that doesn't apply, "normal" penetration with a circumcised penis is harder as the foreskin folding back does aid in penetration I never said it was difficult or impossible, that is relative to the woman but once again it was shown that it was tested and they came to a conclusion that this was the problem.

So it is not an argument it is stuff that I have provided citations for if you want to go back a couple of pages and it would be nice if you actually had numbers to back up most women don't orgasm from sex. That can just be the person or bad performance or both.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

i can understand from a religious point of view of the parent, but until they get older i think the boy/man should decide.
Although...................it does have hygiene benefits and helps against certain infectious bacteria.

Edit: Also, sometimes during sex the foreskin can rip a little so that might be a reason for a man to decide to "snip snip"

Nah. Ever since we figured out how to provide ourselves with water flowing from taps, proper personal hygiene and not let little boys and girls turn into scruffy bastards, the dick cheese and maggot infestations should be pretty much no problem these days. Religion has its place, and I fully support foreskin removal if an individual develops issues, but religious snippedidoodah without any proper medical reasonings behind it are basically just stupid and barbaric. The male funstick is a wonderful thing, and so far I haven't met a circumcised willie who wasn't to some degree desensitized or utterly dysfunctional, and I am talking about members of at least three major world religions. My stance is this: Your God may or may not be my G-D, but he put that foreskin there for a reason.

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

If we say no circumcision we're basically saying it's illegal to observe religious tradition and that's a slippery slope, I mean it could easily turn into making it illegal to build mosques or own a bible

If I say my religious belief tells me to kill all infidels, should it be made legal? The slippery slope is in the opposite direction: allowing evil under the guise of freedom of belief.

 

[HeavenSmile]

OT: I don't believe that parents should be allowed to decided on the issue of circumcision for their kid; whether it be medical or religious reasons. We could go back and forth all day arguing over pros and cons on this issue. "Because god says so....It'll help keep his genitalia cleaner(like it's hard to replace soap and water for lotion or spit)...the opposing sex finds it unappealing."

The matter of the issue being the problem of free choice. Now I haven't had foreskin in my life to have an attachment to my ever lovable body, but I'm sure if the foreskin were around for me to acknowledge; I would have a better understanding of whether or not circumcision is the most practical choice.

Just rather bummed that i'll never get to ponder the decision of chopping a piece of dick off..........

 

[ks1234]

I am SO FUCKING GLAD that I am circumcised... seriously, women like it better, I like it better, less shit to clean, less risk of infection... it's overall pretty amazing.

"women like it bette" Oppinion.
"I like it better" oppinion.
"less risk of infection" Never been infected, cleaning isnt exactly hard, lame reason.

Con
It hurts
Children have no choice in the matter
Can cause issues

If we are going by your 'logic' then...
-"It hurts" is an opinion because people have different pain thresholds (P.S. I remember nothing of my circumcision)
- I bet if we did a poll... most women would actually like a man to be circumcised... seriously, who wants to see... that.
FACT- Yes, there is LESS risk of infection
I ask you though, what "issues" can be caused by a circumcision... because I guarantee that there are more issues that can be caused from NOT being circumcised that can come FROM being circumcised.

You should read the citations that people have posted but just in short I will say the cons of circumcision. It makes masturbation hard, penis is less sensitive, does not increase intercourse times, reduces FEMALE orgasms, erectile dysfunction rates increase and makes penetration harder. Like all surgery it does carry the risk of death and while it only 100 infants die a year in America it is still an unnecessary amount. There is a list of stuff for not circumcised ones as well but both have issues.

Do a quick google search and general consensus is only 25-30pct of women can orgasm during intercourse... foreskin or not.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

Well, speaking as a person who's had circumcision (circumcision-ee?), I can say that indeed, it is better in terms of hygine (and only that, really). How do I know? Well, I had mine when I was about second grade, and thank fuck I didn't get it because of simplicistic religious reasons. I had a... Well, let's call it a skin condition, I won't get into it, but circumcision was my only way out of it. Yeah, it was painful as hell, and I still remember it, for all the suffering it brought me, and continued to bring me until my wound healed-up. But, in the end, was it worth it? Considering that there are less virtues to it, then vices, I'd say no. Yes, it's more hygenic, but on the other hand it's a pretty fucked-up expirience, and it really brands you for life. And from what I've heard, people with circumcision tend to feel less pleasure from sex, due to having the upper skin of their penis removed, and that's where most of the receptors are - so, to hell with that! Plus, people who do it for a religious reason, are idiotic mongrols in my opinion, because submiting your child to the horror, especially if he's old enough to remember it, is on the same level as actually scarring him for life, and I don't believe in that whole 'whatever doesn't kill you blah blah' bullshit - it's true, but whatever doesn't kill you, has gotten pretty close to that, and that's never good! And even if it isn't self-aware enough to know why his pee-pee is missing a topl layer, it's still pretty emberassing, and once they find out... Let's just say it'll closely resemble the feeling of finding out that you're adopted (not that I know what that feeling is, but shut-up, made my point).

Well, I think the message you put out was the fact that you were two, and cognative when you underwent this, that alone could have skewed your vision of a circumcision just a bit, simply because you actually remember having your foreskin removed. I am circumcised, and quite frankly, I don't care, because my foreskin wasn't around long enough for me to really give a crap about it. That might have changed if I had a foreskin, or if I had it, then it was removed when I was little, but most people don't miss what they never had time to even know about. Just an opinion though, and I am sorry you had to go through so much pain when you were young.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Not really. If you want the debate to be that then it is or you can actually look at genuine cons and pros about both situations which I have linked to many of them near the top of the page. All circumcision does is make hygiene easier unless it is necessary and creates other problems like more difficult penetration, more difficult masturbation, higher rates of erectile dysfunction, etc.

I'm circumcised and I've never had any problems with any of those. From what I've seen here, the uncircumcised group is disgusted with the concept of circumcision and finding whatever online survey, Fox News report, or urban legend they can dig up to prove their case, while the circumcised group seems to have no complaints at all and are perfectly comfortable with it.

To my perspective, that says one group is confident with itself, and the other is fear-mongering.

Once again just as above I am not saying it is not possible just it is harder. Just because it is not debilitating does not mean it would not be easier with a foreskin. Also one study was in Fox news so that makes the rest bullshit? If you want you can look up Google scholar and see this is not a fear mongering. There are pros and cons to each and I am providing the cons for circumcision and there they are.

So just to say one more time I am not saying these things are impossible just that they require extra effort without foreskin which they do. For penetration the foreskin slides back during penetration allowing it to be easier not having it you will still be able to do it you just need a small bit more effort, masturbation the natural lubrication does provide aid here.

So I don't see how it is just finding a load of crap just because it agrees with me. Circumcision can possibly help alleviate some urinary tract problems in men but if you honestly thing all I've provided is bullshit and scare mongering I don't suppose you want a link to that.