Queries about circumcision

Recommended Videos

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Aprilgold said:
Freechoice said:
Aprilgold said:
Matthew94 said:
Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?
Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.
Well, if the child goes into a bar and says "I want a beer" then he won't get it, its the same exact reason that allowing children to decide what their body is.

Having your foreskin chopped off, from what I can tell, does nothing and doesn't really change what it looks like in its normal state, because in sex the foreskin is back.
Since when is beer an irreversible operation?

Anyone who makes these comparisions are practically the same fucking nutcases who make a "case" for FGM.

If a beer is denied, they can get one later when they are older. He cant get his foreskin back when its already done. This is fact, and your argument is more retarded than the "case" made by creationists and flat earthers.
A beer is a addictive substance, if a child gets addicted to said substance they grow a need to have the substance. And depending on age can very badly fuck up their mind.

My point is that its the same train of thought, you wouldn't let your 5 year old go into a tattoo parlor to get a tattoo. So why should the child decide what body alterations he has till he isn't older. I'd like to point to who I was originally quoting said that you should let the child decide for himself or herself, but a child can not fully comprehend its actions fully yet, so it would be stupid to let them choose for themselves until they are a adult.

You wouldn't let your five year old fly your plane, so why allow them to decide if or if not they have foreskin.

I'm not saying that a child can't choose certain things for themselves because that would be a lie, but anything that has a permanent repercussion or possibility of one should be handed over to the parent.

Once again, theres no case for or against circumcision the way I see it. Why does it matter anyway, you have to pull the foreskin back to actually get any action and only you will see your penis when it isn't erected. Its so bloody subtle that it doesn't matter, honestly, I don't feel like I'm missing a appendage of my body for being circumcised since it works A-OK anyways.

So once again, why does it matter? Because its barbaric? If we honestly cared about how this is barbaric we would all stand up and realize how barbaric some of our very modern conventions are. Guns are barbaric, they are not a tool to do good, they are a tool for a person to do with what they please, and usually ends in death. War is barbaric, only existing so that one creed over another can get more land or a edge on other creeds.

Circumcision doesn't matter and just because something is barbaric doesn't mean that there aren't more noticeable things you shouldn't be mad about.

Freechoice said:
Aprilgold said:
Freechoice said:
Aprilgold said:
Matthew94 said:
Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?
Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.
Well, if the child goes into a bar and says "I want a beer" then he won't get it, its the same exact reason that allowing children to decide what their body is.

Having your foreskin chopped off, from what I can tell, does nothing and doesn't really change what it looks like in its normal state, because in sex the foreskin is back.
And what do we say to the child that wants a beer?
"Wait until you're older."

You know what the irresponsible thing for the parent to do is?
Buy the beer for the kid.

And the argument that it does nothing is more reason not to do it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?
If it has no repercussions why change it? So many people on here are up-and-arms over nothing.

As I said above, if you honestly think this is barbaric, look at War for example and then tell me that this is honestly a better thing to dislike then say that.

Once again, the dude I quoted specifically said "Let the child decide for himself" and while I understand that, I was just putting it into bad wording and taking it full on literal. A child shouldn't decide for themselves what body altercations they get because if I was a child I would like to have a body mod that changes my arms into tentacles, obviously that is stupid but children, in general, are. Lets face it man, as a child, there was always one thing you saw in a movie that you thought was cool and wanted to do it, and if you were actually allowed to do said thing then you may have suffered a serious injury or made a very bad decision.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Aprilgold said:
who I was originally quoting said that you should let the child decide for himself or herself, but a child can not fully comprehend its actions fully yet, so it would be stupid to let them choose for themselves until they are a adult.
Yes, exactly, the child can't decide, so let them wait until they're an adult.
Simple.

You wouldn't let your five year old fly your plane, so why allow them to decide if or if not they have foreskin.

I'm not saying that a child can't choose certain things for themselves because that would be a lie, but anything that has a permanent repercussion or possibility of one should be handed over to the parent.
That makes no sense. Just because the child can't decide for themselves, doesn't mean the right decision is to let the parents decide.

If the child can't decide for themselves wait until they can.
Simple, all problems solved.

Circumcision doesn't matter and just because something is barbaric doesn't mean that there aren't more noticeable things you shouldn't be mad about.
That's a complete fallacy. It quite possible to have an opinion on more than one thing.
I'm against pointless wars, in favour of greater gun control and against infant MGM.
 

Zerstiren

New member
Apr 4, 2012
148
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Zerstiren said:
I've only ever heard of Americans using lube to masturbate, take that as you will.
This is what I think. I think any circumcised man still has enough skin for pulling (it's why I call mine "Stretch-Armstrong").
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Aprilgold said:
If it has no repercussions why change it? So many people on here are up-and-arms over nothing.

As I said above, if you honestly think this is barbaric, look at War for example and then tell me that this is honestly a better thing to dislike then say that.

Once again, the dude I quoted specifically said "Let the child decide for himself" and while I understand that, I was just putting it into bad wording and taking it full on literal. A child shouldn't decide for themselves what body altercations they get because if I was a child I would like to have a body mod that changes my arms into tentacles, obviously that is stupid but children, in general, are. Lets face it man, as a child, there was always one thing you saw in a movie that you thought was cool and wanted to do it, and if you were actually allowed to do said thing then you may have suffered a serious injury or made a very bad decision.
He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Freechoice said:
He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.
I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.

Everyone who argues against circumcision treats it likes its the worst thing since Hitler fucked your mother with a atomic bomb. There are more things to be upset about and I'm honestly done having to fucking say this over and over again.

This is my opinion, and your not changing it, same way your not changing it on religion, which I think can burn in their type of hell. Either take your bullshit "BUT ITS WRONG" shit out until you realize there are so many things wrong with humanity that matter more that we should fix now, and leave this for later.

If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.
 

subtlefuge

Lord Cromulent
May 21, 2010
1,107
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Freechoice said:
He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.
I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.
That's the thing, many laws in the Bible have to do with survival in the ancient world, like Kosher law. However, most of these were abandoned by Christianity pretty quickly, and have slowly been phased out by many practicing members of Judaism. It seems strange that the one mutilation law is the one that was all but stopped centuries ago and then brought back.

I'm Christian, and I don't fault my parents for circumcising me, but I have no plans on doing the same to any potential sons I have. It feels wrong to have someone give up a part of them without them having any knowledge, for a benefit that has been unnecessary for millennia.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Aprilgold said:
If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.
War is unavoidable. We can make a law against mutilating small children. In fact, we did, but for the gender it would never apply to (in this not shitty part of the world).
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Freechoice said:
Aprilgold said:
If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.
War is unavoidable. We can make a law against mutilating small children. In fact, we did, but for the gender it would never apply to (in this not shitty part of the world).
War isn't unavoidable if we, as a population, were united with a cause of furthering humanities's long term, instead of short term wins against others for what we should share. Is it hopeful, very much so, but is it impossible, no. In the times of now with such things as the interenet where it literally takes a second to request help anywhere in the world, were seeing a change from less divided cultures hell bent on getting as much power as possible, and more towards a giant database of equal understanding and help.

Once again, its hopeful, but stating that war of all things is unavoidable, when it is if you take the right precautions in mind.

And as I said before, my opinion isn't changing. Making small changes to just regular bigotry will hopefully change the world for the better, but arguing over small details won't help. Circumcision does not harm many and often times is required for a medical procedure, I do not care that I am cut because it doesn't change how I am in and out of bed.

subtlefuge said:
Aprilgold said:
Freechoice said:
He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.
I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.
That's the thing, many laws in the Bible have to do with survival in the ancient world, like Kosher law. However, most of these were abandoned by Christianity pretty quickly, and have slowly been phased out by many practicing members of Judaism. It seems strange that the one mutilation law is the one that was all but stopped centuries ago and then brought back.

I'm Christian, and I don't fault my parents for circumcising me, but I have no plans on doing the same to any potential sons I have. It feels wrong to have someone give up a part of them without them having any knowledge, for a benefit that has been unnecessary for millennia.
To each their own. I'm not changing it, granted I may or may not decide when it comes time to circumcise my child, but it doesn't matter at all, does it?
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
Jonluw said:
The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)
Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Everyone who argues against circumcision treats it likes its the worst thing since Hitler fucked your mother with a atomic bomb. There are more things to be upset about and I'm honestly done having to fucking say this over and over again.

This is my opinion, and your not changing it, same way your not changing it on religion, which I think can burn in their type of hell. Either take your bullshit "BUT ITS WRONG" shit out until you realize there are so many things wrong with humanity that matter more that we should fix now, and leave this for later.
There's that same fallacy again.
It's possible to care about more than one thing.
My work in creating world peace is a long term project that leaves me with spare time. Obviously with the majority of that spare time I work on subtly subverting the American government into enacting greater gun control laws, but even that doesn't take up the entirety of my life. So, with the rest of the time, I argue on the internet about circumcision being performed on infants.

before they can actually process pain,
What part of your arse are you pulling that out of?
 

Superior Mind

New member
Feb 9, 2009
1,537
0
0
JimB said:
Superior Mind said:
Not ignorant, irrational.
Is the difference especially meaningful here?
I guess not. I suppose I'm trying to determine the difference between not being a medical expert and making decisions based on what information is available to you/what you understand, (ignorance,) and thinking inoculations inject government mind-control serums, (irrational.)

Circumcision for religious or aesthetic reasons seems to err on the more irrational side. It's unnecessary surgery, however minor, and the reasons are either not sufficient to warrant it, (aesthetic,) or based on nothing more than superstition. I don't think male circumcision's all that bad but if we're really going to discuss whether we think it's moral or ethical for a parent to get to decide to unnecessarily alter their child's body then I'd say that I don't. It's not giving doctor's authority over parents either, not really. Remember circumcision is rarely a medical necessity nor can it said to be beneficial.

I think of kind of like this: If a parent were to insist that due to religious or other reasons they deemed it necessary for their child's appendix to be removed any doctor would say no. Just assume for the sake of argument that an appendectomy had the same health risks as a surgical circumcision, (as opposed to a metzitzah b'peh circumcision which may even have more health risks.) Now the child won't miss the appendix, it won't impact on their life at all, unlike circumcision it wouldn't even leave any visible trace except for maybe a scar. But we wouldn't accept it. And the reason we wouldn't accept it is because it's wrong to commit someone to unnecessary surgery without their knowledge or consent. It's why most rational people cringe at some of the more invasive versions of female circumcision.

I dunno, that makes sense to me anyway.

(Also sorry for dragging you back into this thread I just wanted to respond and clear my own thinking up.)
 

JimB

New member
Apr 1, 2012
2,180
0
0
Superior Mind said:
Also, sorry for dragging you back into this thread. I just wanted to respond and clear my own thinking up.
Nah, you're good. Don't have much to say right now, though, so might forget to come back to this later. No offense.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Zack Alklazaris said:
Jonluw said:
The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)
Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.
Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."
 

Zack Alklazaris

New member
Oct 6, 2011
1,938
0
0
Jonluw said:
Zack Alklazaris said:
Jonluw said:
The difference in sensitivity, from what I hear, is not great enough to be a real concern. In any case, you won't get to compare it to uncircumcised sex so you won't have a point of reference.
Whether people like foreskin or not is an entirely personal thing. Some girls say a penis with foreskin gives greater stimuli (The ribs on "condoms for her pleasure" are imitating foreskin)
Well that settles it, someone who isn't circumcised needs to get on the chopping block and then tell the rest of us who are circumcised if we are missing out on something.

Considering the foreskin is a sensitive part of the males penis I would think we are.
Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."
So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Maze1125 said:
What part of your arse are you pulling that out of?[/quote]

Once again, I don't give a damn, so you guys can stop quoting me trying to... Do nothing? Its literally the same exact thing repeatedly and I honestly don't care past the 7th time reading the exact same arguement every 10 minutes.
 

Jonluw

New member
May 23, 2010
7,245
0
0
Zack Alklazaris said:
Jonluw said:
Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."
So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.
Sensitivity is an individual thing after all.
Chances are you'd be more sensitive if you weren't circumcised though.
There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin as well.

To try to explain the difference in sensitivity, I can give you this example:
When you go for a walk, your glans penis (i.e., the head) is in contact with your underpants.
I'm assuming this doesn't bother you.
When an uncircumcised man goes for a walk, the foreskin lies between the glans and the underpants.
If, by chance, the foreskin rolls back he is in the same situation as a circumcised man.
His reaction is different to that of the circumcised man though.
He might start walking funny for starters, and try to straighten up his pants a bit with discreet movements. Then he'll start looking around for somewhere he can put his hand down his pants inconcspicuously to remedy the situation.
Basically, for an uncircumcised man the stuff you deal with on a daily basis is really annoying. Such a situation might leave him unable to focus on much else.
 

Maze1125

New member
Oct 14, 2008
1,679
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Once again, I don't give a damn, so you guys can stop quoting me trying to... Do nothing? Its literally the same exact thing repeatedly and I honestly don't care past the 7th time reading the exact same arguement every 10 minutes.
If you care so little, why do you keep posting?
We're only responding to the things you say.

Why do I keep saying the same things? Because I DO care. What's your excuse?
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
Jonluw said:
Zack Alklazaris said:
Jonluw said:
Even if you went and circumcised yourself, I don't think you would be able to compare the two.
The difference is only partly due to the missing foreskin.
The main factor is the fact that after having been circumcised for a good while, your glans will develop a thicker, more callous skin due to the constant stimuli (rubbing against pants).
This means the change in sensitivity will probably be too gradual to evaluate.
It would make it more difficult to masturbate though.

A Norwegian comedian named Kristopher Schau did go and get circumcised when he was making his tv series "The seven deadly sins".
His most immediate comment was "You know that feeling when your foreskin rolls behind your head while you're walking and it starts chafing so you have to stop and pull the foreskin back up? Yeah, it's like that, only all the time, and I can't pull the foreskin back up."
So your essentially saying the head of the penis becomes less sensitive? Well christ I can't imagine it being more sensitive than it already is during sex. Hell, much more and it would drop me to my knees screaming.
Sensitivity is an individual thing after all.
Chances are you'd be more sensitive if you weren't circumcised though.
There are a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin as well.

To try to explain the difference in sensitivity, I can give you this example:
When you go for a walk, your glans penis (i.e., the head) is in contact with your underpants.
I'm assuming this doesn't bother you.
When an uncircumcised man goes for a walk, the foreskin lies between the glans and the underpants.
If, by chance, the foreskin rolls back he is in the same situation as a circumcised man.
His reaction is different to that of the circumcised man though.
He might start walking funny for starters, and try to straighten up his pants a bit with discreet movements. Then he'll start looking around for somewhere he can put his hand down his pants inconcspicuously to remedy the situation.
Basically, for an uncircumcised man the stuff you deal with on a daily basis is really annoying. Such a situation might leave him unable to focus on much else.
So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?
 

Archroy

New member
Sep 30, 2010
47
0
0
Freechoice said:
So are you saying the uncircumsized guy is having the ouchies because the foreskin rolled back and his underwear is chafing the soft skin?
It can be horrendously uncomfortable. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from chafing amongst other things.