Circumsized or uncircumsized?

Believe it or not, entire internet message boards have almost been destroyed over posts like yours. I swear to Hunab-Ku.

Comparing it to female circumcision is absurd.

Its just better, man. If you had thicker skin, you'd join the "pecker necker club." I'll put a word in for you at the next mohel meeting. Just think, no more getting snagged on rusty bannister nails, rose bushes, etc.

 

Why do a lot of guys want to get circumcised later on in their lives? Because they like being natural? hmmmm

 

Post a link with this overwhelming evidence. WTF? I'd love to read how that alleged Mapplethorpian study was conducted. Who is the control group? All the uncircumsized babies lying around the hospital some morning? How did they hook them all up to a digital orgasmatron and figure out who was getting the most pleasure?

 

Generally past childhood it's because of medical reasons where it appears to be the best course of action

 

- I'm saying that circumcision has life-long adverse consequences and that I can provide overwhelming evidence in support of my position.

- My intention is to demonstrate that circumcision is harmful.

- It is nothing short of obscene when somebody picks up a knife and amputates part of a child's sexual organ.

- It is a cruel despicable act, and I wish that it would stop.

- I can demonstrate that circumcision is harmful simply by showing that it destroys healthy nerves and nerve endings and blood vessels and protective tissue (which are beneficial by definition). In other words, the destruction of healthy body parts equals harm, so there's no need to hook anyone up to a machine if you want to prove that circumcision is harmful.

- I can prove that sexual mutilation is harmful simply by showing that it causes a great deal of pain and trauma to newborn infants.

- If your penis was mutilated and you have no recollection of your pain and suffering, it still doesn't change the fact that you suffered a great deal of pain when they did that to you.

- If you slipped a chemical to your girlfriend and you then proceeded to rape her, the act would still be a crime even if your girlfriend has no memory of it.

- I hope that people are going to stop doing this to infants and children once they come to understand that circumcision causes lifelong irreversible harm.

 

There are seldom any valid reasons for doing it to anyone.

 

It's common sense too. On an uncircumcised man, the head of the penis and the sensitive underside is protected by the foreskin, leaving those nerves sensitive and untouched. Years of rubbing against diapers, underwear, boxers, pants has a habit of desensitizing the nerves. It's like any other part of your skin that's vulnerable to such conditions. The nerves wouldn't react the same as they would had they been protected by the foreskin.

I've been with both types of men and with the way they describe sex, it seems that uncircumcised men receive a more intense pleasure.

 

You didn't provide any evidence, much less overwhelming evidence. In fact, everything you posted was conclusory opinion based on little if any facts.

No one who is circumsized agrees with your characterizations. Likening the act to drugged date rape is more absurd than your previous one.

"lifelong irreversible harm" - please. Under that standard, so is getting a tattoo, or piercing your body somewhere. You can do a lot worse to yourself hanging around the Southside Alley Bar in Wilmington, Del. on Friday night. Yup.

We are talking about the same thing aren't we? Losing a bit of foreskin under local anesthetic?

 

Or that the uncircumcized men you've been with are compulsive exaggerators.

That was a joke, btw.

But seriously, have sex with me, and you'll think you slept with Shakespeare by the time I'm done describing about it.

 

Exaggerate much? I'm cut and my equipment works quite well...Imagine if I had been born 200 years ago, when black people were enslaved; I think having a cropped penis wouldn't be at the top of my list as far as injustices, y'knowhatI'msayin'? Human slavery was a wee bit more 'barbaric' and 'sick' IMHO.

You. Need. To. CALM. DOWN. Srsly...

Didn't mean to derail the thread, just wanted to give this drama kween a shot of FUCKING REALITY to chew on...

Please, proceed with your arguments, none of which will change the fate of 99.7% of the posters in this thread...most of whom have had their fates decided already and for better or worse, have to live with the outcome.

 

I have submitted an article from the journal "Pediatrics" which proves that sexual mutilation causes extreme pain to newborn infants, and there is still more information that I haven't gotten around to posting as of yet. The basic facts are all based on SOLID EVIDENCE. The procedure does amputate healthy nerves and nerve endings and blood vessels and protective tissue from a patient who is healthy and who therefore doesn't need to have an operation performed on his healthy genitals, and this isn't my own opinion .... it is a FACT .... so, if anyone believes that it doesn't cause any harm when healthy body parts are ripped out of living and breathing human beings only to be tossed unceremoniously into the garbage can, or that it doesn't cause any harm when healthy body parts are vivisected from the living bodies of healthy non-consenting subjects, the ball must now be placed in their court, and they must be prodded to supply convincing evidence which demonstrates the necessity for embarking on this strange and unusual course of action. It isn't enough to use the "argument from authority" which assumes that there has to be some valid reason for doing it just because doctors are doing it, because doctors also did all kinds of other evil and downright stupid things in the past, such as prefrontal lobotomy and leeching.

 

In this argument, I'm on the side of the fence with people who believe it is wrong. If I had a son, the only reason I'd even consider putting him through that would be if his father was cut. I think you can do more emotional damage to a child if he's "different" than the actual act of circumcision as a baby. But, I lump the surgery in the same category as getting your tonsils removed. Very rarely is it absolutely necessary and the human body should remain in tact. I also don't believe in making cosmetic decisions for someone else. If it was something my son wanted to decide to do later, that's his decision. But who has the right to decide how someone's body should look besides that person? It's more of an ethical argument for me than entirely medical.

edit: I also meant to add that I think a lot of the people screaming "torture" are taking things to the extreme, but I'm not awake enough to remember everything atm.

 

I suffered no emotional impact from being different from my father. I was circumcised, and he was not. As a child, I simply accepted that difference as a fact.

I agree with your points about unnecessary medical procedures and making medical decisions on behalf of someone else.

 

Are you trying to say that in cases where a woman undergoes a hysterectomy or a mastectomy, that a similar operation should also be performed on the woman's healthy daughter just to ensure that the daughter isn't going to feel "different" from the mother ? LOL ... I realize that you aren't trying to say that a daughter should be mastectomized in order to "match" her mother, but you might as well be trying to say that because the reasoning is identically absurd in both cases. The urge to conformity is great in herd animals, but imo you're taking it to ridiculous extremes when you start advocating body part amputation just for the sake of social conformity.

What's next ? Are you going to start saying that mothers and fathers should bleach the skin of their dark-skinned children just for the sake of sparing them from the supposed agony of being "different" from the white kids ?

In the case of genital mutilation, which is extremely conspicuous in locker room settings, the only real emotional damage that occurs is when children come to the realization that they were sexually mutilated without their consent and that there's absolutely nothing they can do to make themselves whole again, short of undertaking restoration, which is a long and a laborious process. But even if they decide to undertake a restoration, and even if they do it successfully, they still cannot regain what was stolen from them because restoration is merely cosmetic in nature and it cannot bring back the amputated parts, such as the frenar band and the frenulum. So in that way, it is the circumcised children who are traumatized in the presence of normal children and not vice-versa. If the intact child happens to be surrounded by circumcised children, the intact child is going to be under pressure to be like them, not necessarily because he wants to be like them, but because the other children are envious of him for having something that they don't have and which has been ripped out of their bodies without their consent.

The penis is central to every man's psyche, and that's why the circumcised man is typically so adamant in his defense of the practice. The circumcised man doesn't want to feel "different" from normal men, and that's why he insists that all men be circumcised without their consent during infancy, that way he can create the illusion of his own normalcy. It's a very selfish way of thinking, I know, but that's how men tend to be in the general sense and with few exceptions.

Men tend to be selfish and vain and self-centered. If you have something that they don't have, they are going to be jealous of you.

William Blake said it best:

"Cruelty has a human heart
and jealousy a human face,
terror the human form devine,
and secrecy the human dress."

That's a very poor analogy, not only because the tonsils do not show up conspicuously in a locker room setting, but also because they have nothing that even remotely approaches the psychological importance of a penis. If you really want to torture a man psychologically and to maximum effect, you will have to amputate parts of his penis and testicles. A eunuch in a locker room setting would undoubtedly do his absolute utmost to hide his condition from everybody else, and his life would be miserable beyond all words, i.e. it would be a living hell. But if a man is simply missing his tonsils, it has little or no psychological import. I've read that eunuchs during the Middle Ages were generally the most miserable of beings, and that they were especially jealous of normal men who were able to relate to women in the normal way.

The best analogy I can think of is to try and picture yourself in a locker room setting where all of the other women are missing a breast. Do you think that you would you feel "traumatized" under such conditions, or do you think that the women with the conspicuous deformity would be the ones who'd be inclined to feel traumatized ?

The issue is almost entirely social and cultural. If circumcision was adopted by the medical profession, it's because men in the medical profession are the only ones who could ever get away with mutilating millions upon millions of penises without having to worry about facing any legal consequences. All they had to do was to create all kinds of phony excuses for doing it, and that came naturally to them because they tend to excel at making up phony excuses for things.

Circumcision is typically carried out with anesthetic, but after the anesthetic wears off, the infant has an open wound in his diaper, and the open wound is then going to come in contact with urine and feces. It's too bad that infants are pre-verbal and that they cannot express their feelings in words.

 

Again, reaching for extremes. It's great that you're so passionate about something, but there are other causes in this world a little more important that would love your gun-ho attitude on the matter.

If you're going to quote me and go off on me, try reading things as they're written, perhaps? I did say the only reason I would CONSIDER it would be based on the father.

The tonsil thing isn't a bad example, because if you do your research and look back in history, circumcision was once routine (like removing tonsils) because the medical field once believed that there were benefits to it, that it's unneeded part of the body, and it only caused more problems than prevent. And to some degree, there is accuracy there. Like wisdom teeth, the appendix and tonsils, the foreskin was once a valuable tool in protecting the head of the penis when man walked around without clothes and needed the protection.

I am in no way condoning circumcision, but I do believe that it is up to the man when he's older as to whether or not he wants it done. I don't believe its right to do it to children and again, taking my words for what I wrote: Saying that there is worse psychological damage is me saying, the pain involved isn't something that babies remember and it's unlikely to ever effect them. Doesn't make it right, but it also isn't something that needs to be taken to the extrem you have, because it isn't something that irrevocably damages them forever (unlike your ridiculous examples of rape.)

Oh, and as for the psychological damage a guy has from realizing he's been mutilated. I've heard more complaints from guys who aren't circumsized than guys who are about being different. It seems to me that any psychological damage from being circumcised isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out to be. I just personally believe its the man decision, not the parents.

 

hey Bigcity, you know one thing you never said is what exactly is your dick.

See your psychology analysis fails on one huge aspect, cut guys like their dicks that way and believe it's better


Also, I looked up the law in Sweden, there's no law against circumcision, they just passed a law saying the procedure had to be done by someone certified by the board of health and accompined by a nurse, and after 2 months it has to be done by a doctor, which seems like a very sensible law

Epic fucking fail

 

Nobody would complain about it either way if people would just come to their senses by refusing to mutilate the sexual organs of newborn infants. But if you ever encounter a man who wants to have part of his penis chopped off, you can remind him that he can turn his wish into a reality very easily ... simply by shelling out a small amount of money. But nobody really cares if a man wants to have part of his penis chopped off. The only thing that normal people find objectionable about circumcision is that it violates the minds and the spirits of men who did not give their consent to have it done.

It's a very big issue for men and that's why they are so adamant about defending it. If they really didn't care about it, they wouldn't do it to their sons and they wouldn't insist on defending the practice with all sorts of contrived "reasons."