Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Sun Flash]

As a woman, I don't have much perspective on this. What I will say is that if I ever have a son, I'll leave it up to him to do whatever he wants with his dong. There's no overwhelming positive or negative arguments for either side (barring immediate medical problems of course), and the hygiene point is moot, it's not that difficult to give it a quick clean in the shower.

TL;DR If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[BleedingPride]

doesnt really affect sexual performance but if the want to then they can

 

[Neil Sharpson]

I actually had to be circumcised at the age of 27 for a medical condition. Sometimes it's neccesarry.

 

[The Dutchess]

Being circumsized or uncircumsized - either way shouldn't matter.
What should matter is that it's the choice of the individual whether for religious or non-religious reasons. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[Sewora]

Not sure if it's been pointed out, but the foreskin is by far one of the most erogenous zones on the male body. Alot of uncircumsized men can orgasm simply from stimulating the foreskin alone.

That being said, circumcision is wrong due to many worldly and regional reasons.

It's technically mutilation, a modern society would never let a parent decide to cut off certain other body parts on an infants body simply because they felt like it.

Very few doctors actually do it these days, and most recommend you not to have it done on your child since it has no medical benefits. It's actually quite the opposite. The foreskin maintains, lubricates, protects the gland from infections, keeps it clean, fresh and healthy.

The foreskin serves the purpose of lubricating the penis during intercourse or masturbation aswell.

By US standards it's unconstitutional. From my research I've come to realize that the US constitution says that you are free to choose your own religion, which becomes an impossibility if you are circumsized. You are not allowed to be Hindu if you are circumsized.


There's a thousand different other reasons why it should not be allowed.
And I'm perfectly aware that circumsized men will argue that it's alright and causes no harm. But *some* Islamic women would argue that having the right to dress as you want, be who you want, be with whomever you want or eat and drink what you want is wrong aswell.
It's all about how you've been raised and lived your life. No one is going to tell you that you're a bad person for being circumsized, but you might get a few comments if you have it done to a defenseless child that doesn't have the power to say no.


Yes.. The word "no", and the power therein. The lack of ability to say no does not justify anything you do to a person who can't say no. That's like gagging someone, cutting off parts of their body and claim it's fine because they never said no.


And I've heard the stupidest reasons as to why it's good. With the fact that it has no medical value proven, people have turned to other reasons to justify circumsizion. Such as; "It looks better", or "It's easier to clean", or the dumbest excuse I've ever heard; "It looks normal if it's circumsized."


And to conclude, there's nothing wrong with circumsizion if you decide have it done to yourself.
Just be aware that circumsizion is an archaic tradition that is dying out in the modern world. Only a few third world countries and USA still maintains a high rate of circumsizion performed on infants.
If we should allow circumsizion, it should be fine to have sex with children for religious reasons, or sacrifice animals, break childrens spines, force men and women into sex, all in the name of religion. Is that really the kinda world we want to live in? Not I, and I'm happy I live in good old Sweden, where we got rid of such barbaric rituals a long time ago.

 

[Batou667]

It's genital mutilation. Fairly harmless mutilation, but mutilation nonetheless. I'm baffled as to why people would do it.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

 

[Thanato5]

one word. barbaric.

 

[Sewora]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I'm a bit torn here. I'm uncircumcised (dad wouldn't go for the alternative) and I'm both comfortable with the current situation, but somewhat curious how it'd be were I in the other...state.

This is a bit awkward to phrase.

Honestly, I'd be a bit interested to see the performance differences, since that's all that actually matters to me in the sex act, so...yeah!

Not a fan of the mutilation aspect.

Make no mistake, it IS mutilation of a child's genitals. If you're taking a knife and metal clamps to it, you're not exactly fostering a natural environment for that individual child's package. Not to mention the fact that it's incredibly painful for the infant.

Have you seen those things being done? Or seen the tools used to do it? Like something out of a Middle Ages torture brochure.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment. I have never been unsatisfied with sex or masturbation (well, I have on occasion, but obviously there are other factors too).

 

[Sewora]

The purpouse of removing the foreskin is to prevent masturbation because it removes 90% of the pleasure receptors.

The only benefit from removing those receptors is that one might last longer when they're having sex because they can't feel nearly as much.

I doubt that's true, because otherwise uncircumcised people must be passing out with pleasure every time they orgasm. I'm perfectly happy with how my guy performs.

Actually if my memory serves me right it became such a standard procedure in the US due to it functioning to prevent masturbation amongst young boys. Hell, it was first invented to prevent men from wanting to have sex with a particular woman in the city.
Back when masturbation was considered wrong, and occasionally described as a habit by the mentally ill.
Look it up, masturbation-prevention methods. There was even a crotch-harness for young boys too, so they wouldn't ejaculate in their sleep due to perfectly normal "wet dreams".

But Kakashi on crack has a point. Removing the foreskin does reduce the sensation and pleasure of masturbation quite significantly. Instead of moving your soft foreskin up and down repeatedly which is self-lubricating AND an erogenous zone which adds a great deal of sexual sensation, you are using the rough hardened skin on your palm to replace it.

Be that as it may, it doesn't seem to be a very effective treatment. I have never been unsatisfied with sex or masturbation (well, I have on occasion, but obviously there are other factors too).

Not very effective at all. People always find a way. You can cut off the hands on a person, and that person will still find a way to masturbate.
But what we know of people's ingenuity today, they weren't factoring in back when it was more commonplace to circumsize.

 

[OriginalLadders]

Except for cases of severe phimosis (which can only really become a problem during puberty) circumcision is entirely unnecessary.

I think it is utterly disgusting when the first thing that pops into a new parent's head is "Aww... let's cut a bit of him off."

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Not very effective at all. People always find a way. You can cut off the hands on a person, and that person will still find a way to masturbate.
But what we know of people's ingenuity today, they weren't factoring in back when it was more commonplace to circumsize.

Err... You're not suggesting I'm using slices of ham or something?

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I'm against circumcising boys unless there is a medical or religious reason. America does it to every baby boy shortly after birth for really no reason at all. The doctors claim it's for sanitary reasons but honestly in this day in age that shouldn't be a problem. I think parents don't want to explain to their sons how to care for themselves but that's my opinion.

As for me I was uncircumcised until a few weeks ago. I had the surgery for medical reasons and kept putting it off due to not having insurance. After the pain and tenderness died down I can say I'm happy with my decision.

Still, I think it should be a decision a man makes for himself as an adult and not something parents do for them.

 

[Michael Galvin]

I wonder how many of the opponents of circumcision (calling it child abuse and mutilation, and that it should be the "child's choice") are in favor of abortion. Seems rather hypocritical to me.

I also have to laugh at people who are critical of opponents of abortion and gay marriage, claiming that they have no right to legislate morality, but then they themselves want to make things like circumcision illegal. Hypocrites.

In truth I'm not an advocate one way or the other regarding circumcision. If a parent feels it's right for their child then it's not my place to impose. My parents didn't have me circumcised, but it wasn't about principle or morality. They simply didn't see a medical need for it.