Circumsized or uncircumsized?

come on yall- either or-
i will not circumsize my son- when or if i have one- but then again i dont live in america. seems to be more pressure to have it done there-
in saying that i like my guys who is circd. think that it should be a personal choice. circumsisions to babys are cruel.
wonder if you could watch the proceedure being done on your baby boy... fuck that man, ugh.

 

Might as well start comparing taxes to rape, those are taken away without consent and could easily be paid on a person's own.

 

TheMadcapSyd you are indeed an idiot
Every american citizen consents to pay taxes when he uses any of the rights the country gives. i will always pay my taxes. because i know what taxes are for. our government would not function without taxes
and as for circumcision our human bodies function better with our foreskin. what might be gained by circumcision does not out way what is lost. how much is complete sexual sensation worth, i say a lot. and causing a baby any amount of pain is evil. and i dont care about cosmetic. cosmetic is a moot point like adding or subtracting zero

 

Why then do men who have sex both ways report no decrease in sexual satisfaction?

This will be followed by:

"No, they're just embaressed and refuse to report honestly to annoynmous surveys, argh I refuse to believe anything that supports dick cutting because circumcision IS FUCKING RAPE."

 

CIRCUMCISION IS RAPE!

I want to make sure everyone sees those words since you had the balls to compare the two.

 

CIRCUMCISION IS RAPE! i agree
you are force ably taking something from a baby that they can never get back. circumcision scars the body for life. circumcision has no proven benefits. and many proven negative effects, like loss of sensation.

 

Of course there's a benefit

If you're a catholic priest, that is.

 

See, this is where your head is up your ass and you're ignoring medical science to suit your needs, you're no better than an evangelic christian doing the same. Whether the benefits are enough to warrant the procedure is a fair argument, saying there are no benefits though are asinine.

And you keep spitting our loss of sensation ignoring the fact it's not correlated to sexual satisfaction.
http://www.circs.org/library/fink/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119420541/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://www.circs.org/library/bleustein/
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/denniston3/
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/richters1/

Yup, cause the studies done into men circumcised in adult life specifically to determine this show a correlated reduction in both sensation and sexual satisfaction..........oh wait, they don't.

BUT RAPE VICTIMS OF THE WORLD, REJOICE, KNOW THAT CIRCUMCISED MEN HAVE FELT YOUR PAIN.

 

those studies you posted were done within a very short window after circumcision. but the keratinization process takes a long time, several years.if the person is circumcised as a baby. this hardening process is often complete by the time that person starts having sex. this hardening process is gradual and all gradual processes are difficult to track. if you are circumcised as an adult and have sex in a month. you wont have completely hardened yet. you will notice that your not getting sensation from your foreskin because its gone. but you wont notice a large difference from the head of your penis because it hasn't hardened yet.

if you are circumcised as a baby. you wont ever know what your complete sexual sensation would have been able to have. what could be more evil then keeping a child from feeling all the sexual pleasure that he should have been able to feel.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

this is a matter of ethics. is it right to surgically alter a baby because you think he might look better? is it right to take from the child the pleasure he could have had so he might look better? will the child's foreskin kill him? your appendix can kill you but most people still have them.

can you tattoo your name on the child to prove that he is yours? the answer is no because you changed the appearance of the child

circumcision is a punishment for being born with a penis.

 

Actually no, those studies were done in a random survey of people who had been circumcised in adulthood. I somehow highly doubt really any, let alone a good deal of them just happened to be cut right before they were asked to take part in it. Also the second survey, the largest, involving over 2,400 men was conducted at 6, 12, and 24 months. It says that in the opening. TAKE NOTE OF HOW HE IGNORES ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST HIS POINT TO MAKE THE POINT CIRCUMCISION EQUALS RAPE.

male privilege is a punishment for being born with a penis.

no wait, what.

 

and there are studies that disprove my studies and studies that disprove the ones that you provided. meaning that until a study that is done by a non-biased medical group. on a large amount of people from across the world. with provable reproducible results. data on both sides will be flawed.

i notice you have said nothings on the ethics of doing this to a baby.

 

Compared rape to circumcision.

The comparison is apt.

I'm striaght, but if you told me I could either be:

a) done up the ass by pope benedict

or

b) held down and sexually asaulted with a permanant amputation of the best part of my penis

I'd choose ass-rape every time.

 

thats good, i would choose the same

 

Uhm, 6 to 24 months. EXACTLY. A very short time after circumcision. It takes decades for all the numbing to acrue.

If you're talking about the Kenya research, it is a lie that it was random. Every participant sought circumcision, was offered a free circumcision, and was paid cash for his compliance. On top of that the intact men reported HIGHER satisfaction, but since the 2-question survey about "pain" and "difficulty with penetration" had so little to do with pleasure-receptivity, both groups came up close to 100% and Bailey et al declared being cut makes no difference.

A load of pure crap.

 

the Africa studies are indeed a load of crap. TLCTugger its great to know that there are other people as enraged at this prevision of science as i am.

 

I'm not trying to say that circumcision is exactly the same thing as rape, but you've gotta admit that there are many similarities between the two. IMO, circumcision is a whole lot worse than rape for the simple reason that it leaves a constant reminder which cannot be hidden from view. It's fairly easy to hide it when you're inside a public locker room, but there's one thing you can never do, and that is ... you can never hide your own butchered penis from yourself. It's always there with you, and you cannot deny that someone else did that to you without asking your permission. I wish that they had raped me instead of butchering my genitals.

 

- Studies require funding ... lots of funding.

- There is no such thing as a non-biased medical group. If a medical group is involved in performing a medical study that involves any type of procedure that is making money for the said medical group, this is known as "conflict of interest." There are large populations of men who aren't experiencing any discernible problems with their intact penises, but the "non-biased medical groups" simply aren't paying any attention to these large populations of men. Instead of conducting their research in places where large populations of healthy intact men can be found (i.e. in places such as Norway and Finland and Sweden, etc.), the "non-biased researchers" seem to have a definite penchant for trekking off to the more obscure regions of Africa, along with tons of money that was granted to them by the Bill Gates Foundation, and with the single-minded goal of publishing hair-splitting sophistry so that they can justify cutting up the genitals of non-Africans. Medicine runs on profit, and profit depends on maintaining one's "scientific" credibility, but the one thing that's really incredible about this whole affair is that it only seems to prod us into calling for more "non-biased" research, as if to imply that there really is such a thing !

 

Medicine must have disease in order for it to survive financially.

Health is the death of medicine.

Doctors have a very keen eye for disease, but they cannot seem to recognize health, even when it's looking at them right in the eye !

Doctors have a very morbid tendency to see disease in everything.

 

Are you trying to say that you have a sexual preference for circumcised men ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d96PKZB2Uak"]YouTube- Sexism - Response to AngryAussie