I'm cut and perfectly happy and plenty sensitive. Don't see the purpose of all the extreme fuss about it. Circumcision done on a new born is long forgotten by the time he even starts talking. Purple Helmets of the world unite!
Physiologically speaking, sex with an uncut penis should be better, as the foreskin is designed to lube everything up (it's a very technical but highly efficient organ with this specific function). Of course, women who are confronted with a mutilated penis might automatically want to use some artificial lubricant, because a cut penis has lost this function - so in the end, the lubricant might do the trick. For men, an uncut penis offers considerably more sensibility, as the foreskin is full of highly sensitive nerve endings. A cut man's gland becomes a bit numb because of the skin becoming "corny" (don't know if this is the correct English word - "clavus" - like the sole of the feet of someone who walks on his bare feet all the time). In this sense, a man with an intact foreskin will experience much more intense sex, but a man with a "corny" gland might keep it up longer. Finally, psychologically speaking, uncut men will of course never have a trauma, whereas many cut men have one. In the end, I think the practise should be abandoned as it is an assault on a man's capacity to enjoy intense sex.
Sorry, but why should a woman's 'aesthetic' preference (especially a young woman in her teens) be of any value in a discussion of human mutilation. I am certain that men in East Africa have an 'aesthetic' preference for mutilated women. That does NOT make it right! As to a woman's thoughts about 'inside me,' the male penis erect inserts in the same condition in a mutilated state or a natural state - how can it feel different? I fear that we are here dealing with bias and not fact. Fact: the mutilation of any baby prior to an age of choice iswrong!
Alright gigga... As a woman I have no say in the matter whatsoever I spose. I don't sleep with guys who have foreskins, whatever I'm biased, I'm being discriminatory. What the fuck ever. Get over yourselves. Most of you who are screaming out against this are probably doing so because your jealous. Penis envy ha As for the difference between FGM and circumcision, like hannah said - women have to endure sex with sewn genitals, menstruate with sewn gentials. It never completely heals, and probably inflicts pain. Not to mention that most of the time, the "surgeries" are performed with jagged pieces of shrapnel or tin cans - unlike a scalpel thats used on babies. Also, type III female gential mutilation, also called infibulation, is performed without anaesthetic on girls between the ages of 2 and six - also unlike most cases of male circumcision. FGM is also known to cause infertility... when was the last time you heard about a circumcized man who was sterile because of it? Get off your high horses.
Look i started this thread to get opinions not for some fuckin huge argument to start. If anyone here who IS in possession of a valid non-biased comment PLEASE post otherwise get a life (i am not trying to be rude). Also women have a huge say in the matter as they have to look at there partners etc.
You've heard both sides of the arguement, some think its wonderful, others are less than subtle about their distaste.
Don't you mean "I didn't think you WERE that stupid" we're is a conjunction between "we" and "are", meaning "we are". were is the word you were looking for. I also noted you didn't read my entire post. Thats 15 years of maturity for you.
and obviously, those two years (three, I shall be 18 in a few months) seem to make a lot of difference. Go back, read my post about FGM and get back to me when you have something valuable to add.
Wow, way to show that your prejudice against unmutilated males and people younger than yourself. That was really cool, thanks. I don't think anyone here was seriously supporting FGM, IMHO mutilating anyone is very obviously wrong. If people want to mutilate themselves after they’re old enough to make that decision, well that should be up to them.
I have no prejudice against "unmutilated" males and people younger than myself. When one presents an unstable argument, its the opponents duty to use it to their advantage. He is obviously not understanding the argument I tried to make. That happens. Sure, I'm 17, big freaking deal about age. What no one asked, or IMHO needed to be known - was the fact that I've matured past my age, experienced things that a girl my age should maybe not have experienced, and that added to my maturity. I found his argument sad, and pathetic. My apologies if it came across as prejudice. As for the "unmutilated" males, I've already made my case. I will not probably ever sleep with an uncircumsized male because to me, it is unpleasant. I apologize to all "unmutilated" males if that offends them, but seeing as I have the open orifice on my body, and its my choice whether or not I would like a "possibly" unclean object in there (this is, of course not ALL cases, and I just want to point that out). Afterall, its not even an argument about ethics. Its an argument about choice. And sadly, many men obviously feel that they were not given "a choice". What no one is pointing out, is that parents are making decisions for their children because children do not have the ability to make the RIGHT decision for themselves. CHILDREN, do not have the knowledge to make the proper decision. If you were to ask a toddler with an ear infection if they WANTED to have a surgery to put tubes in their ears, what might their answer be? Probably a no. So this child experiences more and more ear infections that could possibly cause deafness because they choose not to have a surgery - because their parent chose to let them make the choice. What about if a child breaks their arm? Parents take them to the hospital to have the bone set. Find out the child needs pins put in their arm. Is it the childs choice to say "Sorry doc, I don't want to have surgery" because they're afraid? If you're going to use the "traumatized" angle then do some homework. The gland that emits the body's natural anaesthetic blocks out the pain. There is no memory of it. No one person under the age of 3 could possibly be traumatized from a circumcision at that age. Most circumcisions are performed within one month of the child's birth. Anyone who is circumsized after that, I would assume, needed it for purely medical purposes. (IE: my brother. needed a circumcision because the foreskin was growing OVER the head of his penis, restricting the ability to urinate, causing an UTI).
i'm definatley about the whole live and let live thing. but please, get your facts straight. possiably unclean object? not really. the male body has natural defenses against infection and the like. just like your genitals do. your "possiably" unclean too. but that doesn't stop too many guys. you won't get an infection or anything. haha, that makes me laugh. the main "medical reason" circumscion is preformed, is because of the chance of a urinary track infection. but that rarley happens. it's like pulling a perfectly healthy tooth because it might get a cavity. women are way more likely to get a urinary track infection, yet no medical procedure is done on young baby girls to try to stop it. also, it is reported that 38% of young baby boys suffer complications from this surgery. there are happy cut males, and happy uncut males. so both sides need to just chill out. the real issue is, are you ok with yourself?
How many men clean their foreskins, and around their foreskins? I'll happily admit to taking a cloth to my little girl in the shower to clean up. The whole "possibly unclean object" is my OWN PERSONAL OPINION. Maybe I should have stated that. Its my own personal preference - which is also what this debate is about.
yeah, i understand that. it's your own opinion. and that's fine. like i said, to each their own. but, in the defense of guys who are "natural", women and men have been having sex like that scince the beggining. it's really only recently that circumscion became more common. and all those billions of people before us did just fine. women didn't die of a little bacteria, nor did men. nor did they get any complications. it's natural. your body isn't going to try to promote something that has a chance of hurting you.
o, and most men clean around their foreskins. of course, not EVERY guy does, just like not EVERY woman cleans down there. but, based off the personality and such, you can figure out how clean a person is.
For Pool Shark: The pleasure it would provide me aside, for the sake of a sensible rebuttal that you won't be able to deny with a straight face, I shall refrain from my characteristic use of ad hominem. I'm going right back to the posts made since my last. I'll quote what you've said, then give my response. Pretty clear. Enlighten me as to how I am incorrect. Feel free to quote me. I've not said anything you can prove wrong. And what are your sources? I've read a great deal of literature on this particular subject, and though people don't like to accept it, like most conflicts, there's the good side (one wishing to spread education) and the bad side (exploiting ignorance). I've read the circumcision fetishist sites like CIRCLIST, and I've read the anti- sites. The anti- sites are reliable. What do they have to gain from lying? They are not making money. They gain nothing. You have to at least attempt to understand the psychological factors in this. A man who has been circumcised will not want to find anything wrong with it. Why? Because it is not reversible. A woman who is emotionally attached to a man who is circumcised will not want to find anything wrong with it. Why? Because it is not reversible. What do you fail to understand? To cut off part of a baby's body (unless there is an immediate health-risk - almost never) is wrong. Do not be so cold-hearted and inhumane as to deny this. Please just admit that you were out of line and change. Those of us with sense would actually be willing to respect you if you turned it around. If a man chooses to get circumcised, it can be called a surgery. To strap a baby boy down and take a scalpel to his penis for what you were simple enough to describe as an (ignorant) "aesthetic" preference, is a mutilation. Pure and simple. It is entirely comparable to FGM in that it is a violation. What they cut off and sew up is not relevant to the morality involved. It is a violation, either way. If I said I had an "aesthetic" preference for African girls who'd had their clitoral hoods cut off (because not all have the entire clitoris removed)... would you hold it against me? And why is that? You are only 17? Have you had sex? I'm guessing he was circumcised? Just asking a woman's opinion on this subject is grossly offensive, but you're not even in the position to comment. You are a teenager. The male(s) you have was was(were) circumcised. You think it looks neater. That's about as deep as this goes. Your true (petty) feelings and astonishing immaturity are showing. If we were jealous, we would get circumcised. Painkillers. Wouldn't feel a thing. There is a reason why you have to circumcise a child (as in Judaism and Islam), because no man would go in for that. Over 80% of the men in the world are not circumcised, and never will be. Educate yourself before you appoint yourself an authority. Really. That is not what this is about. Do not go off on a tangent to cover your shame for presenting such a petty, disturbing, adolescent argument. The violation for both male circumcision and FGM is the same: It is non-medically necessary, and performed only for "cultural" reasons that are deemed acceptable in that particular "culture" and thought to be sick everywhere else. Why on earth are you trying to justify this? What, you think that because a horror is inflicted on (a relatively tiny) number of girls (on a relatively uncivilised continent), that it's OK to inflict a slightly lesser horror on baby boys in the developed world? What kind of reasoning is this? Because some poor African girls are being tortured, American boys should be too? This is ridiculous, anyone with sense reading this will agree. Do you really have not a shred of humanity? I'll say it again, then. What would you think if I thought the circumcision of women is "wonderful" and was critical of the critics for their "less than subtle" distaste? Really, you've embarrassed yourself enough. You clearly do. Read this; Do you see this? Have you eyes? Thank you. We're getting somewhere. You have presented no argument. You have come along with all the authority of a 17-year-old who has never even experienced an intact partner (and god knows how many circumcised ones), and successfully vomited all over this thread. If you can't be sensible, you have no place discussing this. A nice sob story. We all have our crosses to bear, dear. We don't come here to read your autobiography. It wasn't going badly at all until you came in and added that asinine comment. I responded exposing your idiocy, and you launched a massive attack along with a couple of other people (Charise) who has brought her issues with me from other threads into this one. You are making me very angry. There is no logic in anything you say. And it's spelt uncircumcised. There's no SIZE in there. I just mention that because I saw you correct that other kid's spelling, despite the fact that English isn't his first language. You seem to think uncircumCISED penises are dirty. You have never been anywhere near an uncircumcised penis, so tell me, what is it you've heard? Is it that dreaded smegma word? Well, I'll teach you something. Smegma is the end result of a cleaning process, and consists mostly of dead skin cells and emolients. Its build-up is only visible to the naked eye after several days without washing. Another excellent point coming up... WOMEN PRODUCE MORE SMEGMA THAN MEN! Isn't that an eye-opener? Smell your vagina. Now imagine something nowhere near as "smelly", and you have a (not very clean) uncircumcised penis! There you go! Would it be sensible for me to say I don't want to sleep with women because vaginas are disgusting? No. It would be idiotic, but less idiotic than what you've said about intact males. You should apologise, and we'll be big enough to forgive you. God, you have a real superiority complex. Don't flatter yourself, darlin', we're not exactly lining up to fornicate with a baby-hating weenie-chopper like you. I'm sorry, that was uncalled for... Is this your way of admitting that circumcising infant is wrong? Are you finally admitting it? And it is about ethics. You clearly have no ethics because you see nothing wrong with strapping a baby boy down and taking a scalpel to his penis. You'll make a wonderful mother some day! So why is this mostly an American phenomenon? Do penises suddenly work differently in the U.S.? No. Pretty much the rest of the world (non Muslim/Jewish) do not even need to consider circumcising their children. How ethnocentic are you? There are no logical reasons to think of it. The foreskin serves numerous purposes. We are meant to have one (both males and females). Just because you can live without something does not mean that it is a "mistake" or "entirely unnecessary. Nor, it seems, does the vast majority of the American public. You are also showing your ignorance. The majority of Americans who have their children circumcised (currently a bit over 60%, I believe) do not do so for "medical" reasons. Why? Because there aren't any. The fathers want it because they want the boy to look like them. The mothers want it because, like you, they have never experienced anything else, are entirely ignorant, and have no desire to educate themselves. Simple and depressing. A huge violation. Debate is not one of your stengths, is it? The need for an ear "tube" would arise with an illness/infection. There isn't an illness/infection that will affect a mentionable number of boys that will require circumcision. Boys in the U.S. are not circumcised because it's good for them, they are circumcised because their parents don't really care if it isn't. Like yourself. You would submit your child to this without batting an eyelid? And why? The comfort of ignorance. Shame on you. Again, this is in no way relevant to this discussion. You came in here saying you find "cut penises" more "aesthetically pleasing", and now that you are (quite rightfully) ashamed of that comment, you are trying to press on the "medical necessity". There is no necessity. Why can't you understand that? Everybody read this. If you're reading this, please stop for a second and focus on what this girl just said. She told me to do my homework, and then she said just about the most stupid thing I have ever read on this damn forum. Do you hate babies? Do you hate men? Why are you so desperate to deny that this is painful? If I took a knife and cut off your clitoral hood (which is not nearly as sensitive as the foreskin), would you feel pain? Yes. Are you now talking absolute rubbish because you can't stand to admit you said something silly and insensitive? Are you so weak a person that you have to do this? There is no "gland" that "blocks pain". Pain is there for a reason. It is the body's way of telling you that what you are experiencing is bad. Damaging. If human beings had a "gland" to "block pain", torture wouldn't be effective. Human beings would never suffer! Have you just invented this magical gland so you can win an argument? That is pathetic, even for you. Call up some scientists and tell them about this invention of yours, I'm quite sure they'd love to hear how it'd work. Please, since you're such an expert, always open to new knowledge, watch this video: http://www.intact.ca/video.html. Though I suppose you'd just claim that the baby was an "actor" they hired. Really. Hang your head in shame. You are no psychological expert, you are no child-psychology expert. Apparently you've never heard of birth-related trauma? There is no conscious memory, no. There is such a thing as the subconscious (which is a might powerful thing). Has psychoanalysis not reached your shitty country yet? Where did you get this computer? Did it drift up onto the shore? Read this book by an acclaimed and respected psychologist: http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964489538/103-6252296-7028601?v=glance&n=283155 Please. Just take a look. When the foreskin is still sealed to the head of the penis, and has to be torn apart. Again, think of bamboo shoots under your fingernails, but a million times worse. Medical needs are rare. The most common misdiagnosis (offically recognised at the most popular misdiagnosis in U.S. medicine) is phimosis which is not to be diagnosed until the boy is 18. It is when the foreskin is not retractable. Most cases of "phimosis" we have heard about have been when the foreskin was still sealed down, and had yet to retract naturally on its own - something that may happen as late as adolescence for some. That didn't happen to your brother. Your parents must have lied to you because they felt ashamed of their specious reasoning. What you descibe is not a condition. You probably mean the foreksin would not retract. At that age (I'm assuming under 18?), it's not supposed to. Go and tell your brother that your parents were too lazy to educate themselves. As many men wash their genitals as women do. But as I pointed out earlier - the female organs are prone to get even dirtier than the intact penis will, due to greater smegma production. All you need to wash your genitals is water. Water. Tell your kid that instead of circumcising them or telling them to douche. Really. If you have such issues with the human body, I suggest you seek help. If the idea of foreskin is so foul to you, you must hate your vagina, too, right? You must be full of self-loathing because of your dirty vagina you can't get clean. I bet you're like Lady Macbeth with that thing. I like clit-hood-less women. Mmm. Do I sound nice? ---------------------------- Foreskin serves numerous purposes. Therefor, the man is better off with it. Therefor, the female is better off with an intact partner. ---------------------------- The End. ----------------------------
rmorgan, shut up. If you have a problem (though there are no lies or even half-truths), please point them out. Don't make a general, asinine statement. Shut your fat trap. If your attention span can't endure a few hundred words, go watch MTV or toke on your crackpipe. To .Hannah. You assumed I am a "woman hater" because I criticised (ignorant) women that are cold, heartless, insensitive, inhumane, and stupid enough to find the results of a mutilation on the baby to be... "cute". That's called having principles. I really didn't expect anyone to ride my ass for that. Let's just let society slip down the shitter, shall we? Sounds good. Don't speak to me like I'm an idiot. You know nothing about me. And this isn't even about me. If you had an issue with a remark of mine, you should dispute it, not make sweeping generalisations about my personal nature. I have no hatred for women that I don't have for men, and I'm not about to go out of my way to try to convince you of this. It strikes me that you are the one with significant, weight issues with "sexism". You go out of your way to make it clear and visible to all that you are very much a "tough-minded" woman. For what are you compensating? I'm dying to find out. Only Jews and Muslims do it for "religious" reasons, and that is no excuse anyone. I do not believe you can do to you child (and their genitals) as you please in the name of a god you happen to believe in. A child is not religious. No more than it is Marxist or Capitalist, etc. In any society where foreskin is a "rarity", they spread myths about it. Americans are stupid by default, so what do you expect? It's like how yanks mock French women for having "hairy" armputs and pubic regions, purely out of ethnocentrism - just because they are used to women who shave. They are the exception, the minority. Even if they are too stupid to realise it. Be nice. And if you ask me you pounced on me a little too quickly for it. It's as if I could not possibly have said anything more offensive. I hate plenty of women, yes. I too hate plenty of men. You are being sexist by leaping to the defense of womankind. I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone. Good. I do. Good. People quite rightfully are sickened by FGM (except for Germaine Greer: "One man's mutilation is another's beautification." - but she's a nut.), but not nearly as many speak out against male circ. This is blatant hypocrisy - since it is the principle of the surgery that is objectionable, not the actual parts removed, sewn up, etc. Yes, I'm fully aware of them. Of what? Do not patronise me. It shouldn't be. Circumcision apologists/celebratists are immoral. It means not only that, but also that they are ignorant of the mechanics of intercourse, male genitals, and the workings of their own. That's the psychology of it. They don't know what they're missing. They have, pardon the bluntness, been mindfucked. It is not reversible. They prefer illusion to despair. It's common. Nearly all women that have been circumcised force it on their daughters, and criticise those that try to stop it. Mad, sad, sick, but true. It's a "cultural" disease. I never said that. I am sickened not just that women don't criticise the practice and PROTECT their sons, as I expect they would protect their daughters, but they play a major role in encouraging it. Many men and women say they cut their kids because women think it's "better". They have a responsibility. If they don't speak out, they're shitheads. Women can be shitheads, too, you know?
