Should Circumcision be banned?

[darkangel]

Interesting link Tim. I especially took notice to these...

The mechanism for the effect is unclear, but the authors suggest that the retraction of the foreskin during intercourse exposes the penis to infection, and that the moist area under the foreskin may then provide a protected environment in which the viruses can flourish.

Still, considering the results of their own and previous studies, the researchers conclude that circumcision should now be accepted as an effective intervention for H.S.V.-2 and H.P.V. prevention, even though they emphasize that the procedure is only partly effective and that the promotion of safe sex is still essential.

So it does appear that circumcision is an effective intervention for 2 STD's...But of course the practice of safe sex is recommended.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Reduced risk means they can still contract it, just less likely than someone with foreskin. It should not replace protected sex. If someone chooses to sleep with someone without a condom knowing they are infected, well then that's their choice and mistake and they should live with it. Excuses excuses.

 

[Tim]

Reduced risk means they can still contract it, just less likely than someone with foreskin. It should not replace protected sex. If someone chooses to sleep with someone without a condom knowing they are infected, well then that's their choice and mistake and they should live with it. Excuses excuses.

Of course you can still contract a disease being circumcised... What idiot would think you wouldn't need protection because they are circumcised? Where the heel did you pull that out of the article? And what are you rattling on about sleeping with an infected person? How does that fit into the conversation at all? :willy_nilly:

I can still die if I wear a helmet on my motorcycle, I wouldn't be stupid enough to think otherwise. But I still I'm safer with it on.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

The study stated researchers concluded that circumcision can be used as a prevention or intervention to the two HP viruses (partially). I don't think this is a good enough excuse to get someone circumcised. I'd rather my child to be brought up with brains on the matter of safe sex before choosing to snip off some skin to cheat his way.

 

[Thornless]

There is no way a hospital is going to preform a medical procedure on an infant without parental consent. There is no way you could convince me otherwise.

You want a signed statement from his mother with a picture? :24. It happened, she was a young mother, just barely 18. On her own in the hospital having her first baby. She didn't know better or care to complain. Was just something she noticed and moved on.

 

[Tim]

The study stated researchers concluded that circumcision can be used as a prevention or intervention to the two HP viruses (partially). I don't think this is a good enough excuse to get someone circumcised. I'd rather my child to be brought up with brains on the matter of safe sex before choosing to snip off some skin to cheat his way.

Nowhere in the article did the researchers say any such thing. Seriously, reading comprehension is important.

 

[Dana]

Nowhere in the article did the researchers say any such thing. Seriously, reading comprehension is important.

:homo: I read an article that said It WON'T protect you from those virus' and people who are misinformed get circumcised for that very reason. Which I find to be nonsense but thats another topic.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Nowhere in the article did the researchers say any such thing. Seriously, reading comprehension is important.

Um, go to the top post of this page, DA quoted it. My reading comprehension is fine, your eyes need checking more like.

 

[Dana]

The snark is strong with this young one

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

That's cause I am passionate, and just awesome lol *waits for the entourage of coughs*.

By the way, this was a joke, before anyone takes me seriously :unsure:

 

[edgray]

And this statement completely sums up the reason I had my boys circumcised. And it was this point and this point only that drove my decision, yet Edgray has yet to address this.

Read back, I did address it, and it's been addressed many times in this thread.

Alright, without hitting every point and completely tearing into your statements, let me try to sum it all up for you...

Please show me where I am throwing around disinformation... (besides the bathing part )

Again, everything you're saying.

You pointed out my statements on desensitization.... well take a moment and go back and read exactly what I said. I clearly said that if it's true that I would have more sensitivity if I was natural, that it isn't something I would want. Because I am plenty sensitive. I am not missing out on anything, trust me.

Of course you are. If you can walk around with your glans rubbing against your underwear without discomfort, then you have lost sensitivity. It's that simple.

When I make love to my wife, the sensation is so incredible that I have a hard time from going over the top. And that's sensation in the head of the penis, not the shaft. That has nothing to do with a mental problem, it has everything to do with feeling so fucking good that you explode... Now like most men, I try to divert my attention away from the pleasure to control and prolong to experience. That's using your mental abilities and has nothing to do with sensitization, foreskin or where Jupiter is in orbit.
So you can stop with the crap about being circumcised will desensitize your penis/glands. Because I wouldn't want any more sensation and I would bet my left nut that there isn't a circumcised man on this site that would say that he wishes he had a more sensitive penis.

When you've got a foreskin, you don't have to worry about any "diversion of pleasure", because the penis functions AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. The fact you have to do that shows that your bits and pieces are not working as they should! It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. If you have to worry about control or prolonging, you're not functioning properly. Having sex you should never, ever, have to worry about "prolonging the experience", it should just be that way. Can't you see that you've just admitted you have a sexual dysfunction? Never in my life have I ever needed to be concerned with any of that, I can go as long as I need, with total control over when I finish, without a single thought. I don't need to try to "control the pleasure" because my penis works as nature intended, doing what it needs to do, when it needs to.

A friend of mine back in the UK was circumcised. I remember, we were talking about sex one night, and he told me he used to recite the squad for his favourite football team in his head to stop himself from finishing too soon. I'd never heard of something so utterly ridiculous in my whole life. He asked me what I thought about, and I told him that I didn't think about anything, I just live in the moment, nature does the rest. He didn't understand the concept either.

Also, you really should look into how many men are regrowing their foreskins, and read their stories. They're not doing it for a laugh, but to get back the sensitivity that circumcision robbed them of.

So yeah, that was all wrong. You wrongly assume that sensitivity = blowing your load. That couldn't be further from the truth. There's just so much more to it than that.

In summation, as we'd already concluded in this thread ages ago, the ONLY VALID REASON for circumcision is some kind of social normality. That is, if you're born in the US, where circumcision is the normal, social normality is the ONLY possible valid reason you can give. ALL of the other reasons are just horse shit.

 

[edgray]

Just to add a little more...

Orgasm, the culmination of the sex act, is not related to the foreskin, and involves activity of neurones in the hypothalamus of the brain.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I like this stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_and_Johnson

 

[mazHur]

There is general consensus on that circumcision

1. is hygienic

2. reduces over-sensitization

3. has aesthetic value in improving the look of the organ

Penis, inter alia, is a means of penetration and ejaculation into the 'black holes' with its tip only feeling the spark!

 

[mazHur]

There seems to be going whole research on this topic

I like this from the link posted from Wiki..

Masters and Johnson's findings also revealed that men undergo a refractory period following orgasm during which they are not able to ejaculate again, whereas there is no refractory period in women: this makes women capable of multiple orgasm. They also were the first to describe the phenomenon of the rhythmic contractions of orgasm in both sexes occurring initially in 0.8 second intervals and then gradually slowing in both speed and intensity.

Women are indeed hard to satisfy or get satiated....and, good heavens, at all ages they have orgasm the same way!

 

[edgray]

1. is hygienic

Debunked. Smegma is totally hygienic, gross, but hygienic - it's an anti-bacterial agent for Christ's sake!

If you're concerned over hygiene, then why not circumcise all women too? Women's bits are far more difficult to keep clean than mens. And while you're at it, why not remove all fingernails? Shave off ALL hair? Stitch up your belly button? All of these places have bigger potential to be unhygienic than the penis.

Also, soap? I keep saying this, but really, SOAP? Keeping a penis clean is no more difficult than cleaning a hand, a foot, a leg or any other body part.

So yeah, that reason is the biggest crock of shit.

2. reduces over-sensitization

Not according to Tim. And the studies all show different results. There's no proof either way.

3. has aesthetic value in improving the look of the organ

Again, THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE VALID REASON for the procedure. And it's highly subjective. Talk to a European woman and see if she agrees. Or an Australian. Or Asian.

 

[dkwrtw]

Debunked. Smegma is totally hygienic, gross, but hygienic - it's an anti-bacterial agent for Christ's sake!

If you're concerned over hygiene, then why not circumcise all women too? Women's bits are far more difficult to keep clean than mens. And while you're at it, why not remove all fingernails? Shave off ALL hair? Stitch up your belly button? All of these places have bigger potential to be unhygienic than the penis.

Also, soap? I keep saying this, but really, SOAP? Keeping a penis clean is no more difficult than cleaning a hand, a foot, a leg or any other body part.

So yeah, that reason is the biggest crock of shit.



Not according to Tim. And the studies all show different results. There's no proof either way.



Again, THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE VALID REASON for the procedure. And it's highly subjective. Talk to a European woman and see if she agrees. Or an Australian. Or Asian.

I have no actual evidence of this in any way, but I've heard before that Asian women prefer a circumcised cock.

 

[edgray]

I have no actual evidence of this in any way, but I've heard before that Asian women prefer a circumcised cock.

then I retract Asians from the list. Though I didn't think it was common place in most asian countries. Certainly not China or India, and they account for a third of the global population!

In Soviet Russia, circumcised cock prefers itself.

 

[dkwrtw]

then I retract Asians from the list. Though I didn't think it was common place in most asian countries. Certainly not China or India, and they account for a third of the global population!

In Soviet Russia, circumcised cock prefers itself.

It's not that common over there, I'm referring to Japan actually, I heard somewhere before that circumcised guys are extra popular with the ladies there. Again just something I heard somewhere, I have no way of confirming it.

 

[edgray]

It's not that common over there, I'm referring to Japan actually, I heard somewhere before that circumcised guys are extra popular with the ladies there. Again just something I heard somewhere, I have no way of confirming it.

Aren't Japanese men supposed to have disproportionately large genitalia too? I'm sure I heard that somewhere.