ok... circumcision has no medical benifits, it has no hygene benifits... so what is the point and should we allow it to continue.. im my oppinion:- mutilating your childs sexual organs for personal or religious reasons should be considered child abuse, and dealt with accordingly.
shouldn't this be in the filthiness forum (where's there's already a discussion on this topic anyway)?
The filthiness one was a bit of a joke, but it is a serious topic too. And I'm against circumcision when it has no medical benefits. Obviously it's not in the category of female circumcision when it comes to pain and mutilation, but I don't think children who have no choice in the matter should have any bit of them cut off. If people, for whatever religious reasons, choose to be circumcised later in life, then that's their choice. But parents shouldn't have the right to make that decision for them. It should be banned....
If requested on religious grounds then the request should be refused. Anyone acting outside of hospital procedures should be prosecuted. This harks to a large philosophical debate emerging in the country, I want to know where the "God is Dead" tribe are, and whose the spokesman ?
female circumcision is the most sickening demonstration of why patriachal theologies need dispensing with... i don't beleive that in any holy book it says this should be done... but the holy books give men the power to do it.
It's rather silly as well as factually inaccurate to suggest that there are no medical benefits to having a circumcision. My best friend and housemate Simon would have quite a lot to say about that, as he had his removed on medical grounds, when the skin kept closing up and not reopening. I'm sure there are all sorts of other medical reasons too, since there are millions of different afflictions the human body can suffer, and not even doctors know all of them.
Presumably one could only know that if one were circumcised after they became sexually active. I think everyone i know had it done before then, but somehow i doubt it. It all depends on how sensitive the individual is, dunnit?
i agree that in some circumstances it is a medical necessity, i also have know people who have had it done for these reasons... but i was more refering to perental preference. in some cases it's ok to smack someone on the back (if they're choking) but to smack someone on the back because you think its better that way is abuse.
It's a mixed bag. It's widely believed that sex feels better with a foreskin, because the removal of the foreskin means that the penis becomes necessarily desensitised over time. The flip side of that is that people without foreskins can usually last longer, which probably means sex feels better for the woman....
No, I was talking about from a male perspective. My ex was circumcised for medical reasons and so had had sex before circumcision. He claimed that it was much more sensitive and therefore, much more enjoyable... a little too much at times.
How long ago was he circumcised? It would definitely start out as being more sensitive I expect. But for people who are circumcised from birth, it becomes desensitised over time due to the lack of a protective barrier - just as people who walk barefoot have less sensitive feet....
He'd had it done about a year before we got together and he hadn't "used" it post-op, until he met me.
