As far as aesthetics are concerned, uncircumcised folks can have it both ways -simply pull back et voila- but clipped folks have it but one way
as far as AIDS being higher for circumcised: this makes perfect sense and exposes the real rasons for circumcision: hygiene and health.
The forskin can sometimes get tiny tears from vigorous sex and/or handling
it also must be cleaned and cared for
have you ever heard of the apply named word: smegma
(apologies here) this is merely another word for the lubrication that keeps the skin from hurting
In the desert in ancient days without running water or the FDA I'm sure several things took place: people got STDs (and were noticeably dirty) and also died from eating bad Pork . . . . hence the origins of the Hebrew and Muslim dietary and circumcision strictures
todday we can take showers regularly
so, if I have another kid and it is a boy I will not have him hacked
That's the AMA's view as well. (Also, read the page I linked above, with particular note to the final paragraphs - very telling.)
Thanks again.
In looking across the web, I also came across this, which appears to be the modern medical case in favour of routine circumcision, and which disagrees somewhat with that of the AMA and other bodies. It points out that such bodies have actually been revising their viewpoints such they are less negative toward circumcision. In the author's opinion, there is solid medical evidence that they should go further and should start to support it.
Excerpt:
Quote:
A trend not to circumcise started in the mid-to-late 1970s, after the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) Committee for the Newborn stated, in 1971, that there are "no valid medical indications for circumcision" [38]. However, in 1975 this was modified to "no absolute valid ..." [216], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to "New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits" [4]. The latest statement, in 1999 [7,119], summarized the vast array of benefits, but fell short of stating the obvious from the literature survey in recommending circumcision. As mentioned above this is quite understandable, given medico-legal worries in the face of very hostile, politically active anti-circ groups. Interestingly, a joint response by the previous Chair of the AAP Taskforce and others more expert than those on the recent Taskforce rebutted the 1999 statement [192]. Others also levelled valid criticisms [20,113]. The various statements highlight the information that follows in the present web review. It is clear that providing a scientific and balanced statement by a pediatric body is difficult in the face of minority lobby groups whose agenda tends to be a political one rather than medical or scientific. This is not to detract from the clear scientific weaknesses in the 1999 AAP Statement and their pamphlet [20, 192].
And:
Quote:
Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the 1989 Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [188]. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study [248]) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive" [188]. Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [188].
I am not sure that this website represents the present medical consensus, nor that it it changes my view...I am still not going to circumcise my son (now almost two). I present the case on the other side, however, as at least interesting...and as something that I was unaware of until about 20 minutes ago. I actually had no idea that the medical debate was still ongoing to this extent.
So many things don't need to be done. Caesarian sections, teeth whitening, cosmetic surgery, shaving faces/arms/legs/privates, tanning, applying make-up. But I wouldn't argue that all these are barbaric/useless/unnecessary.
I don't understand why someone would denounce circumcision.
All of the above are things that the person *chooses* to have done.
I don't recall most infants being given a choice.
If someone chooses to have it done at a later date, then I would fully support their decision to do so.
What I take umbrage with is:
1) Most parents think it's medically necessary. It's not.
2) Most parents don't know, I don't *think* (I'd like to think not) that their son has a better than 50/50 chance of NOT receiving any pain medication for this surgery.
3) The infant has no say in the matter.
If someone has a medical problem that necessitates it, then *BY ALL MEANS* have it done. If someone chooses, at a later age when they can make decisions for themselves, or at least have a say in the matter, that they want it done for aesthetic reasons, then *BY ALL MEANS* have it done.
I dislike the misinformation, ignorance, and lack of choice for what ultimately comes down to plastic surgery for the vast majority of cases. Oh, and then there's the pain issue...
The problems associated with not being circumcised are minimal. Keeping your self clean in the most important thing, simply because nasty shit can start to form under the foreskin. I think it's really only a problem in young males. When you start "playing" you just end up keeping it clean anyway because of the action of moving the foreskin back. [This is probably part of the old argument that it stops masturbation.] As long as parents can take the responsibility to remind their young sons that they have to keep the area clean everything is fine.
From everything I have heard and read, it appears that an uncircumcised males would enjoy sex more because the nerve endings are not as desensitized [from rubbing on clothing, etc] because the foreskin is coving the area when the penis is not erect.
I think that besides ascetics, which some people can't get ove,r there really is no reason to perform this act.
I've never actually seen an uncircumcised male in real life. What happens to the foreskin during sex?????
Aren't most/all American guys circumcised? I just assumed that......
I think German males are generally circumcised, right?
Among Europeans, is it mostly the British who aren't circumcised? Please forgive my ignorance on this topic. I have absolutely 'no clue'.
For the europeans i don't know for the british, but i can say that most french people are not circumcised.
And for the foreskin during sex it's simple, during the penetration the foreskin is going under the tassel, and it looks like a circumsided one (sorry for the details). Basically i will say it look the same during sex, but look different otherwise.
For the sexual experience i have no clue, you should ask people who have done sex with and without circumcision.
I am impressed by the levef of knowledge of Kickaha about this subject, especially the historic background who is scary, but perfectly liable if we know the spirit of the nineteen century.
PS ; in france this surgery is made by urologist, and not by plastic surgeons. They are done for religious reasons, or for medical reasons. It's not a daily surgical procedure for my urologist friends.
I posted the thread, referenced earlier, that was deleted (at least partially at my request). The thread was my emotional response to photos of a baby boy in the process of being circumcised.
I had never seen a photo so horrible in my life, and believe me, I've seen some goddamned horrible photos. A reply said that he didn't think that the photo was that bad, that he had seen babies with that facial expression before. My wife has had three children (2 girls, 1 UNCIRCUMCISED boy) and I've never seen a baby in such pain. Further, I take that face within the total context of what is going on within the photo. For the rest of my life, I will profoundly doubt whether the term "healer" can be legitimately applied to a doctor who advocates infant circumcision.
I linked to a site (Dr. Dean Edell, radio talkshow host) that has a nice editorial against the procedure. Within that editorial isthe link to the pictures of the boy being circumcised.
I will reiterate again that these are friggin' horrible photos. DO NOT GO THERE IF YOU ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEPRESSION, ARE DEPRESSED, OR ARE UNDER ANY KIND OF DEPRESSIVE PSYCHIATRIC CARE. (Many of you people agitate me because of your political views, but I DO NOT want any of you to hurt yourselves or others because of those pictures- they're that bad; and you, you're the only online/chatroom family that I've got, if you know what I mean.)
Anyways, linked from that site, a New Zealand study has found that male circumcision lessens the enjoyment for women. The effect gets worse with age.
70% of the men in the United States are circumcised and are doomed to unneccessarily diminished sexual enjoyment as they age. Those same 70% (of whom I am one), however great their sex lives, have also been cheated of greater pleasure during the act due to the loss of the additional nerve endings.
Any effects on our society? Suppose that man is 'programmed' by way of his 'unaltered configuration' to enjoy a threshold level of sexual pleasure/relief, a level that, thanks to circumcision, that he will never be able to attain? Is this why so many of us are pissed off without knowing why? Is this why prisons are overflowing? I don't know about any of that. Could it be that we're all masturbating less than we would have otherwise? Like Chico Escuela of Saturday Night Live Fame, "I don't know about that either." Could be the grist for several PHD's, if not a few more threads here in Apple Outsider.
Here's the thread with the pictures. The pictures cannot be linked by just one click. You will have to find them (it's not hard) on the Edell site; they are Two clicks away from where you are right now, so if you DO get to them, you have done so by way of your own determined purpose.
1) Most parents think it's medically necessary. It's not.
2) Most parents don't know, I don't *think* (I'd like to think not) that their son has a better than 50/50 chance of NOT receiving any pain medication for this surgery.
3) The infant has no say in the matter.
1) Ignorance. I take umbrage with this too. A good medical practitioner should set any parent straight during a prior consultation.
2) I'm sure parents can *ask* for anaesthetics for their kids during the procedure. If they are refused them, they can go to another doctor, go to another hospital. And parents *always ask* about whether something will hurt their kid, so they know, or they are lied to and they are about to become rich. And the final retort is always that a baby, a toddler, even a bigger kid will forget the pain in a miniscule amount of time!
3) C'mon! Teenie infants don't have ANY say in ANY matter! Whether their parents smoke around them, punish them by smacking, cut their hair this way, dress them in that, indoctrinate them one way, decide their friends, or feed them fatty food. Many are of these are much more likely to have an adverse psychological or physical effect.
So me, for example, having forgotten the pain (if I ever had any?) of the procedure, am left with an IMO aesthetically pleasing result that may have health and does have hygiene benefits, has no adverse health/ hygiene effects, has no effect on sensitivity/pleasure *that I could ever know* and does not effect my day-to-day life in any way.
Parents *have* to make important/difficult decisions about the way their kids grow up. I don't see the ill effects of a decision for circumcision.
1) Ignorance. I take umbrage with this too. A good medical practitioner should set any parent straight during a prior consultation.
2) I'm sure parents can *ask* for anaesthetics for their kids during the procedure. If they are refused them, they can go to another doctor, go to another hospital. And parents *always ask* about whether something will hurt their kid, so they know, or they are lied to and they are about to become rich. And the final retort is always that a baby, a toddler, even a bigger kid will forget the pain in a miniscule amount of time!
3) C'mon! Teenie infants don't have ANY say in ANY matter! Whether their parents smoke around them, punish them by smacking, cut their hair this way, dress them in that, indoctrinate them one way, decide their friends, or feed them fatty food. Many are of these are much more likely to have an adverse psychological or physical effect.
So me, for example, having forgotten the pain (if I ever had any?) of the procedure, am left with an IMO aesthetically pleasing result that may have health and does have hygiene benefits, has no adverse health/ hygiene effects, has no effect on sensitivity/pleasure *that I could ever know* and does not effect my day-to-day life in any way.
Parents *have* to make important/difficult decisions about the way their kids grow up. I don't see the ill effects of a decision for circumcision.
Would you feel the same way about parents removing an ear or constricting foot growth with tight bindings?
Infants have no say so mutilate them all you want!
Among Europeans, is it mostly the British who aren't circumcised? Please forgive my ignorance on this topic. I have absolutely 'no clue'.
When I tell people my mother is from a jewish family half the time the next question is "are you circumcised then?". It works the other way round too. And frankly the only people I know who have been circumcised is jewish friends of mine.
I´ll estimate that less than 5% of male danes are circumcised.
Most doctors used to believe in the past, that the child did not suffer of pain. Thus they said that giving pain-killer drugs to child was useless. This strange behavior came from the fact, that little child under the age of 4 do not have a lot of memory especially of this events.
I can't remember many things at the age of 3, and it's better this way. A famous pedopsychiatrist, said that it's better to have not the memory of our early ages. (is it necessary to have the memory of our first pampers ?)
Anyway it's not because, we don't have the memory of the pain, that we did not suffer of it. If you take a child at the age of two, destroy his two eyes, he won't complain to be blind, because he will not remember well, the time where he was able to see. The fact that he do not morally suffer of this loss, is not an excuse for such behavioring. Of course we cannot compare circumcison with this example, the analogy was only here to said that it's not because we have forgetten, that it's good.
BTW, struggling against abusive circumcision is good, but try to convice circumcised people that they lost something, and that they are victim of a silly mutilation is an another thing. Is there an interest to make unhappy people who had no troubles ?
Infants have no say so mutilate them all you want!
Heh. Please.
Some people's idea of mutilating the body might extend to cutting hair and finger nails and having piercings. Mine does not. Foreskin, in my mind, is as superfluous as a mole or cist, or even an appendix.
I have no mystical attachment to foreskin (I can't say *my* foreskin since I don't have one). Lamenting that you might be enjoying less pleasure because you have been circumcised is like lusting over the next best piece of Apple technology to the extent that you can never be happy with what you have. Though Aries's suggestions of unknown consequences are interesting (and amusing), though unlikely (in my unqualified opinion). Maybe Kickaha can find research into such a theory.
After visiting Dr Dean Edell's site, I was more struck by what an uncircumcised penis looks like rather than the screaming (presumably) baby. (And of course babies look like that in other circumstances?when they really cry and scream babies' faces look worryingly contorted).
Some people's idea of mutilating the body might extend to cutting hair and finger nails and having piercings. Mine does not. Foreskin, in my mind, is as superfluous as a mole or cist, or even an appendix.
Foreskin is superfluous to you because you don't have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on anything. There are plenty of men who will tell you that it isn't superfluous and I don't see how a bundle of nerve endings are superfluous nor do I see how something that keeps the head smooth and supple like it is supposed to be can possibly be superfluous.
Babies not remembering that they have felt pain is not an excuse to condone inflicting pain on them, rather it rebuts the idea that pain at an early age should prevent a procedure that doesn't seem to have (m)any other adverse affects.
Foreskin is superfluous to you because you don't have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on anything.
I would like to think that I am more rational than this. Though at a sub conscious level, you may be right. Then again, I could write:
Foreskin is essential to you because you have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on the benefits* of not having one.
*aesthetic, hygenic, medical - all open to medical/personal opinon
Quote:
There are plenty of men who will tell you that it isn't superfluous and I don't see how a bundle of nerve endings are superfluous nor do I see how something that keeps the head smooth and supple like it is supposed to be can possibly be superfluous.
Foreskin is superfluous because it does not definitively confer any advantage during sexual intercourse (physically or mentally) or during urinary excretion - the two main functions of the penis.
I will say again, though, that sexual pleasure is only partly about physical pleasure. If I knew that I could feel more physical pleasure than someone else, that someone else could still enjoy sex more than me.
Though Aries's suggestions of unknown consequences are interesting (and amusing), though unlikely (in my unqualified opinion). Maybe Kickaha can find research into such a theory.
After visiting Dr Dean Edell's site, I was more struck by what an uncircumcised penis looks like rather than the screaming (presumably) baby. (And of course babies look like that in other circumstances?when they really cry and scream babies' faces look worryingly contorted).
Like I said, I've been father to three infants and I never saw mine in that kind of agitation/pain.
At least you found my suggestions amusing; that's the important thing.
Foreskin is superfluous because it does not definitively confer any advantage during sexual intercourse (physically or mentally) or during urinary excretion - the two main functions of the penis.
Wrong. The foreskin allows the head of the penis to slide in and out of it during intercourse only exposing itself in the deepest region of the vagina preventing too much direct stimulation allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions. You haven't done your research.
Wrong. The foreskin allows the head of the penis to slide in and out of it during intercourse only exposing itself in the deepest region of the vagina preventing too much direct stimulation allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions. You haven't done your research.
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
(I do get the slight feeling that we are shouting across the Atlantic [Edit: or from Earth to Mars]: "Mines bigger than yours!" )
Comments
as far as AIDS being higher for circumcised: this makes perfect sense and exposes the real rasons for circumcision: hygiene and health.
The forskin can sometimes get tiny tears from vigorous sex and/or handling
it also must be cleaned and cared for
have you ever heard of the apply named word: smegma
(apologies here) this is merely another word for the lubrication that keeps the skin from hurting
In the desert in ancient days without running water or the FDA I'm sure several things took place: people got STDs (and were noticeably dirty) and also died from eating bad Pork . . . . hence the origins of the Hebrew and Muslim dietary and circumcision strictures
todday we can take showers regularly
so, if I have another kid and it is a boy I will not have him hacked
Originally posted by Kickaha
That's the AMA's view as well. (Also, read the page I linked above, with particular note to the final paragraphs - very telling.)
Thanks again.
In looking across the web, I also came across this, which appears to be the modern medical case in favour of routine circumcision, and which disagrees somewhat with that of the AMA and other bodies. It points out that such bodies have actually been revising their viewpoints such they are less negative toward circumcision. In the author's opinion, there is solid medical evidence that they should go further and should start to support it.
Excerpt:
A trend not to circumcise started in the mid-to-late 1970s, after the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) Committee for the Newborn stated, in 1971, that there are "no valid medical indications for circumcision" [38]. However, in 1975 this was modified to "no absolute valid ..." [216], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to "New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits" [4]. The latest statement, in 1999 [7,119], summarized the vast array of benefits, but fell short of stating the obvious from the literature survey in recommending circumcision. As mentioned above this is quite understandable, given medico-legal worries in the face of very hostile, politically active anti-circ groups. Interestingly, a joint response by the previous Chair of the AAP Taskforce and others more expert than those on the recent Taskforce rebutted the 1999 statement [192]. Others also levelled valid criticisms [20,113]. The various statements highlight the information that follows in the present web review. It is clear that providing a scientific and balanced statement by a pediatric body is difficult in the face of minority lobby groups whose agenda tends to be a political one rather than medical or scientific. This is not to detract from the clear scientific weaknesses in the 1999 AAP Statement and their pamphlet [20, 192].
And:
Dr Edgar Schoen, Chairman of the 1989 Task Force on Circumcision of the American Academy of Pediatrics, has stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [188]. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision. During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study [248]) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive" [188]. Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [188].
Full link:
http://www.circinfo.net/
I am not sure that this website represents the present medical consensus, nor that it it changes my view...I am still not going to circumcise my son (now almost two). I present the case on the other side, however, as at least interesting...and as something that I was unaware of until about 20 minutes ago. I actually had no idea that the medical debate was still ongoing to this extent.
Well, as long as little things like anesthetic are used... and they're *not* more often than not... that just boggles my mind.
And I don't think most parents realize that.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
So many things don't need to be done. Caesarian sections, teeth whitening, cosmetic surgery, shaving faces/arms/legs/privates, tanning, applying make-up. But I wouldn't argue that all these are barbaric/useless/unnecessary.
I don't understand why someone would denounce circumcision.
All of the above are things that the person *chooses* to have done.
I don't recall most infants being given a choice.
If someone chooses to have it done at a later date, then I would fully support their decision to do so.
What I take umbrage with is:
1) Most parents think it's medically necessary. It's not.
2) Most parents don't know, I don't *think* (I'd like to think not) that their son has a better than 50/50 chance of NOT receiving any pain medication for this surgery.
3) The infant has no say in the matter.
If someone has a medical problem that necessitates it, then *BY ALL MEANS* have it done. If someone chooses, at a later age when they can make decisions for themselves, or at least have a say in the matter, that they want it done for aesthetic reasons, then *BY ALL MEANS* have it done.
I dislike the misinformation, ignorance, and lack of choice for what ultimately comes down to plastic surgery for the vast majority of cases. Oh, and then there's the pain issue...
From everything I have heard and read, it appears that an uncircumcised males would enjoy sex more because the nerve endings are not as desensitized [from rubbing on clothing, etc] because the foreskin is coving the area when the penis is not erect.
I think that besides ascetics, which some people can't get ove,r there really is no reason to perform this act.
Originally posted by Carol A
I've never actually seen an uncircumcised male in real life. What happens to the foreskin during sex?????
Aren't most/all American guys circumcised? I just assumed that......
I think German males are generally circumcised, right?
Among Europeans, is it mostly the British who aren't circumcised? Please forgive my ignorance on this topic. I have absolutely 'no clue'.
For the europeans i don't know for the british, but i can say that most french people are not circumcised.
And for the foreskin during sex it's simple, during the penetration the foreskin is going under the tassel, and it looks like a circumsided one (sorry for the details). Basically i will say it look the same during sex, but look different otherwise.
For the sexual experience i have no clue, you should ask people who have done sex with and without circumcision.
I am impressed by the levef of knowledge of Kickaha about this subject, especially the historic background who is scary, but perfectly liable if we know the spirit of the nineteen century.
PS ; in france this surgery is made by urologist, and not by plastic surgeons. They are done for religious reasons, or for medical reasons. It's not a daily surgical procedure for my urologist friends.
I had never seen a photo so horrible in my life, and believe me, I've seen some goddamned horrible photos. A reply said that he didn't think that the photo was that bad, that he had seen babies with that facial expression before. My wife has had three children (2 girls, 1 UNCIRCUMCISED boy) and I've never seen a baby in such pain. Further, I take that face within the total context of what is going on within the photo. For the rest of my life, I will profoundly doubt whether the term "healer" can be legitimately applied to a doctor who advocates infant circumcision.
I linked to a site (Dr. Dean Edell, radio talkshow host) that has a nice editorial against the procedure. Within that editorial isthe link to the pictures of the boy being circumcised.
I will reiterate again that these are friggin' horrible photos. DO NOT GO THERE IF YOU ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEPRESSION, ARE DEPRESSED, OR ARE UNDER ANY KIND OF DEPRESSIVE PSYCHIATRIC CARE. (Many of you people agitate me because of your political views, but I DO NOT want any of you to hurt yourselves or others because of those pictures- they're that bad; and you, you're the only online/chatroom family that I've got
Anyways, linked from that site, a New Zealand study has found that male circumcision lessens the enjoyment for women. The effect gets worse with age.
70% of the men in the United States are circumcised and are doomed to unneccessarily diminished sexual enjoyment as they age. Those same 70% (of whom I am one), however great their sex lives, have also been cheated of greater pleasure during the act due to the loss of the additional nerve endings.
Any effects on our society? Suppose that man is 'programmed' by way of his 'unaltered configuration' to enjoy a threshold level of sexual pleasure/relief, a level that, thanks to circumcision, that he will never be able to attain? Is this why so many of us are pissed off without knowing why? Is this why prisons are overflowing? I don't know about any of that. Could it be that we're all masturbating less than we would have otherwise? Like Chico Escuela of Saturday Night Live Fame, "I don't know about that either." Could be the grist for several PHD's, if not a few more threads here in Apple Outsider.
Here's the thread with the pictures. The pictures cannot be linked by just one click. You will have to find them (it's not hard) on the Edell site; they are Two clicks away from where you are right now, so if you DO get to them, you have done so by way of your own determined purpose.
http://www.healthcentral.com/special...sion_intro.cfm
I only hope that if any of you have sons, that you will be better armed than 70% of our parents were.
Best to all,
Aries 1B
Unfortunately, A Changed Man.
God Help the Changer if I find him.
Originally posted by Kickaha
What I take umbrage with is:
1) Most parents think it's medically necessary. It's not.
2) Most parents don't know, I don't *think* (I'd like to think not) that their son has a better than 50/50 chance of NOT receiving any pain medication for this surgery.
3) The infant has no say in the matter.
1) Ignorance. I take umbrage with this too. A good medical practitioner should set any parent straight during a prior consultation.
2) I'm sure parents can *ask* for anaesthetics for their kids during the procedure. If they are refused them, they can go to another doctor, go to another hospital. And parents *always ask* about whether something will hurt their kid, so they know, or they are lied to and they are about to become rich. And the final retort is always that a baby, a toddler, even a bigger kid will forget the pain in a miniscule amount of time!
3) C'mon! Teenie infants don't have ANY say in ANY matter! Whether their parents smoke around them, punish them by smacking, cut their hair this way, dress them in that, indoctrinate them one way, decide their friends, or feed them fatty food. Many are of these are much more likely to have an adverse psychological or physical effect.
So me, for example, having forgotten the pain (if I ever had any?) of the procedure, am left with an IMO aesthetically pleasing result that may have health and does have hygiene benefits, has no adverse health/ hygiene effects, has no effect on sensitivity/pleasure *that I could ever know* and does not effect my day-to-day life in any way.
Parents *have* to make important/difficult decisions about the way their kids grow up. I don't see the ill effects of a decision for circumcision.
Originally posted by drewprops
I can't imagine there being even MORE of my penis to deal with....
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
1) Ignorance. I take umbrage with this too. A good medical practitioner should set any parent straight during a prior consultation.
2) I'm sure parents can *ask* for anaesthetics for their kids during the procedure. If they are refused them, they can go to another doctor, go to another hospital. And parents *always ask* about whether something will hurt their kid, so they know, or they are lied to and they are about to become rich. And the final retort is always that a baby, a toddler, even a bigger kid will forget the pain in a miniscule amount of time!
3) C'mon! Teenie infants don't have ANY say in ANY matter! Whether their parents smoke around them, punish them by smacking, cut their hair this way, dress them in that, indoctrinate them one way, decide their friends, or feed them fatty food. Many are of these are much more likely to have an adverse psychological or physical effect.
So me, for example, having forgotten the pain (if I ever had any?) of the procedure, am left with an IMO aesthetically pleasing result that may have health and does have hygiene benefits, has no adverse health/ hygiene effects, has no effect on sensitivity/pleasure *that I could ever know* and does not effect my day-to-day life in any way.
Parents *have* to make important/difficult decisions about the way their kids grow up. I don't see the ill effects of a decision for circumcision.
Would you feel the same way about parents removing an ear or constricting foot growth with tight bindings?
Infants have no say so mutilate them all you want!
I don't want to live in your World.
Originally posted by Carol A
Among Europeans, is it mostly the British who aren't circumcised? Please forgive my ignorance on this topic. I have absolutely 'no clue'.
When I tell people my mother is from a jewish family half the time the next question is "are you circumcised then?". It works the other way round too. And frankly the only people I know who have been circumcised is jewish friends of mine.
I´ll estimate that less than 5% of male danes are circumcised.
I can't remember many things at the age of 3, and it's better this way. A famous pedopsychiatrist, said that it's better to have not the memory of our early ages. (is it necessary to have the memory of our first pampers ?)
Anyway it's not because, we don't have the memory of the pain, that we did not suffer of it. If you take a child at the age of two, destroy his two eyes, he won't complain to be blind, because he will not remember well, the time where he was able to see. The fact that he do not morally suffer of this loss, is not an excuse for such behavioring. Of course we cannot compare circumcison with this example, the analogy was only here to said that it's not because we have forgetten, that it's good.
BTW, struggling against abusive circumcision is good, but try to convice circumcised people that they lost something, and that they are victim of a silly mutilation is an another thing. Is there an interest to make unhappy people who had no troubles ?
Originally posted by BR
Infants have no say so mutilate them all you want!
Heh. Please.
Some people's idea of mutilating the body might extend to cutting hair and finger nails and having piercings. Mine does not. Foreskin, in my mind, is as superfluous as a mole or cist, or even an appendix.
I have no mystical attachment to foreskin (I can't say *my* foreskin since I don't have one). Lamenting that you might be enjoying less pleasure because you have been circumcised is like lusting over the next best piece of Apple technology to the extent that you can never be happy with what you have. Though Aries's suggestions of unknown consequences are interesting (and amusing), though unlikely (in my unqualified opinion). Maybe Kickaha can find research into such a theory.
After visiting Dr Dean Edell's site, I was more struck by what an uncircumcised penis looks like rather than the screaming (presumably) baby. (And of course babies look like that in other circumstances?when they really cry and scream babies' faces look worryingly contorted).
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Heh. Please.
Some people's idea of mutilating the body might extend to cutting hair and finger nails and having piercings. Mine does not. Foreskin, in my mind, is as superfluous as a mole or cist, or even an appendix.
Foreskin is superfluous to you because you don't have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on anything. There are plenty of men who will tell you that it isn't superfluous and I don't see how a bundle of nerve endings are superfluous nor do I see how something that keeps the head smooth and supple like it is supposed to be can possibly be superfluous.
Originally posted by BR
Foreskin is superfluous to you because you don't have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on anything.
I would like to think that I am more rational than this. Though at a sub conscious level, you may be right. Then again, I could write:
Foreskin is essential to you because you have one and don't want to feel like you are missing out on the benefits* of not having one.
*aesthetic, hygenic, medical - all open to medical/personal opinon
There are plenty of men who will tell you that it isn't superfluous and I don't see how a bundle of nerve endings are superfluous nor do I see how something that keeps the head smooth and supple like it is supposed to be can possibly be superfluous.
Foreskin is superfluous because it does not definitively confer any advantage during sexual intercourse (physically or mentally) or during urinary excretion - the two main functions of the penis.
I will say again, though, that sexual pleasure is only partly about physical pleasure. If I knew that I could feel more physical pleasure than someone else, that someone else could still enjoy sex more than me.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Heh. Please.
*Hack*
Though Aries's suggestions of unknown consequences are interesting (and amusing), though unlikely (in my unqualified opinion). Maybe Kickaha can find research into such a theory.
After visiting Dr Dean Edell's site, I was more struck by what an uncircumcised penis looks like rather than the screaming (presumably) baby. (And of course babies look like that in other circumstances?when they really cry and scream babies' faces look worryingly contorted).
Like I said, I've been father to three infants and I never saw mine in that kind of agitation/pain.
At least you found my suggestions amusing; that's the important thing.
Glad/relieved you're not upset.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Foreskin is superfluous because it does not definitively confer any advantage during sexual intercourse (physically or mentally) or during urinary excretion - the two main functions of the penis.
Wrong. The foreskin allows the head of the penis to slide in and out of it during intercourse only exposing itself in the deepest region of the vagina preventing too much direct stimulation allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions. You haven't done your research.
Originally posted by BR
Wrong. The foreskin allows the head of the penis to slide in and out of it during intercourse only exposing itself in the deepest region of the vagina preventing too much direct stimulation allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions. You haven't done your research.
Another body of thought, however, suggests that the unprotected head of the circumcised penis loses sensitivity as a result of every-day abrasive contact. Thus, the circumcised penis has a higher stimulatory threshold?direct stimulation during sex causes a slower increase in pleasure 'allowing for prolonged and more intense sexual excursions'.
(I do get the slight feeling that we are shouting across the Atlantic [Edit: or from Earth to Mars]: "Mines bigger than yours!"