for the ladies- circumcision

Just ask non-Americans what they think of white Anglosaxon Protestant America, and you will indeed find that most think it is a totalitarian culture. Most atheist, secular cultures as well as non-monotheistic religious cultures tend to find Jewish, Islamic and American monotheism pretty problematic.

The fact that, even though Europeans settled the US, the country is so backward and stuck in time when it comes to social progress and reason compared with Europe, would definitely make it a bizarrity in history. Cultures that get stuck in the past are strange, that's all there is to it.

-We can discuss the aesthetics of circumcised penises, but that's pretty useless. The majority of men on this planet find circumcised penises ugly, because the majority of men has not been genitally mutilated and is happy to have an intact penis.

-The fact that circumcised cocks are crusty and scarred is obvious; the act of cutting leaves bits of flesh and scars; just as is the case with female genital mutilated. Cuts in the human body leave scars and crusts.

-The fact that a circumcised penis is dysfunctional speaks for itself too, because it has lost the functionalities of the foreskin.

So no emotional tirades here, just rational arguments (at times even stating the obvious). I see you can't reply to them in any other way than by telling us we're tirading. You've done this over and over again now.

You haven't given any single rational reason as to why the primitive, traditional, religiously inspired act of ritual male genital mutilation should be condoned.

So try again, with arguments please, not with attempts to call others tiraders.

We're waiting.

 

I have nothing against religious people, but I find it weak when they use religion to legitimize cruelty, violence and barbarity.

Nobody forces you to continue old, useless rituals. In our modern day and age, there are other ways to affirm your children's identity and belonging to a group.

Cutting in people's flesh to leave scars is the most ancient, most brutal and most primitive of those marker techniques. Most civilizations went beyond them long ago, and have invented symbolic identity markers instead.

To put it in classic Peircean semiotic terms: (1) primitive cultures used "indices" to affirm identity (literal marks in the human flesh; inscriptions in objects), (2) later cultures used "icons" (the quality of semblance), and (3) modern cultures use symbols (an abstract sign that is interpreted on the basis of convention; no longer a relation to the literal object as such).

There's no reason why Jews, Americans or Muslims should stick to the first, brutal, primitive technique of marking the members of their group.

 

There is no use trying to have a rational discussion with someone who resorts to insults and emotional tirades to make a point. I don't know where in the world you live, but wherever it is, you hate America and Americans. Or maybe it is the 100+ prostitutes you have had sex with that is affecting your brain, and your schlong.

 

I don't know much about it but it doesn't seem that brutal if done at a young age. . when a boy is 8 weeks old it doesn't seem to be that bad. They heal up fine and there's not much to a healing a process at all. I mean I may be wrong I don't have a little boy or brothers but I've to enough brises to see its not a big deal.. . but thats just me. . to each their own I guess.

 

Ok, so you're just incapable of having a discussion. Again you prove that all you can say is: "you don't agree with me, so I call you a tirader".

You have countered none of our arguments with arguments.

This topic is hereby closed, as far as your participation concerns.

 

But the question remains: why would you even consider male genital mutilation when there is no medical reason for it whatsoever, only outdated ritual and cultural reasons.

Why ruin and destroy the important functions of the foreskin? Just to make sure that your kid can prove he is a Muslim, American or Jew? He can demonstrate his cultural identity with other means, can't he?

 

Source of said studies? As far as I know, the majority of the studies that "prove circumscision is good" have been manipulated by doctors simply to keep the procedure going on the table. It's good business, considering how many american babies still get the procedure done.

Your claim that being circumcised "feels better for the man and woman" is completely false. A circumcised penis is desensitized due to substantial dying of the sub surface epidermis, especially around the urethra.

What I'm saying is that a circumcised penis will have 40% more sensitivity, on average because of the greater abundance of nerves that are located in crucial areas, such as around the urethra.

The claim that "circumcised is better for females" is also false. Have you ever heard of a ribbed condom? Their function is to simulate an uncut penis.

Furthermore you can just look at it from an evolutionary perspective: We've had a few million years for the male penis to develop into an organ optimized for pleasing the opposite sex. (It's unclear if we can expect males to be equipped with vibrating penis's in the next hundred thousand years or so )
If used properly, the folded back skin of an uncut penis functions to provide more glide, and a little extra stimulation on the lips of the vagina.

I feel for ya man, you got screwed over at birth. However there are procedures available to restore the foreskin, so you aren't completely screwed. Or you can go on believing the pro circumcision propaganda that's been shoved down the throats of americans for the past century.

It is a dying fad though, more and more people are refusing to put their child through with the procedure. I just hope that if you have a child you can get over your insecurities around the issue and do what's right for him.

 

Let's quickly recap the facts:

-a normal penis has a foreskin that performs different tasks and functions:
-it protects both men and women from HIV-1 and from other infectious STDs
-it acts as a natural lubricant
-it stimulates the vagina and the vulva, making it more pleasurable for women than having sex with a mutilated penis which scrapes instead of glides
-it stimulates the glans and keeps it naturally healthy and lubricated (mutilated cocks have the tendency to dry up and get crusty, because the foreskin which performs the task of keeping the head moist and healthy has been removed)
-the foreskin is full of nerve endings enhancing the pleasure and intensity of male's sexual sensation; non-mutilated males have 40% more sensation in the penis than mutilated males
-the foreskin distributes the female's juices in a most optimal and smooth way, making the use of artificial lubricant unnecessary
-male (and female) genital mutilation is only practised by fundamentalistic, totalitarian, monotheistic cultures: by Muslims, Americans and Jews.


These are some basic facts. Let's kindly give Cutted a last chance to reply.

 

By the way, new research shows that uncircumcised men are less susceptible to HIV because Langerine, found in the Langerhans Cells in the foreskin, act as a natural barrier.

Langerin keeps both men and women safe from all kinds of diseases - the function of the foreskin in the first place.

Circumcized men also have less sensitive penises, which not only reduces their sexual sensation, it also makes them less likely to use condoms, thus increasing the risk of STDs.

Letter abstract

Nature Medicine 13, 367 - 371 (2007)
Published online: 4 March 2007 | doi:10.1038/nm1541

Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells

Lot de Witte1, Alexey Nabatov1, Marjorie Pion2, Donna Fluitsma1, Marein A W P de Jong1, Tanja de Gruijl3, Vincent Piguet2, Yvette van Kooyk1 & Teunis B H Geijtenbeek1

Top of pageHuman immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) is primarily transmitted sexually. Dendritic cells (DCs) in the subepithelium transmit HIV-1 to T cells through the C-type lectin DC-specific intercellular adhesion molecule (ICAM)-3-grabbing nonintegrin (DC-SIGN). However, the epithelial Langerhans cells (LCs) are the first DC subset to encounter HIV-1. It has generally been assumed that LCs mediate the transmission of HIV-1 to T cells through the C-type lectin Langerin, similarly to transmission by DC-SIGN on dendritic cells (DCs). Here we show that in stark contrast to DC-SIGN, Langerin prevents HIV-1 transmission by LCs. HIV-1 captured by Langerin was internalized into Birbeck granules and degraded. Langerin inhibited LC infection and this mechanism kept LCs refractory to HIV-1 transmission; inhibition of Langerin allowed LC infection and subsequent HIV-1 transmission. Notably, LCs also inhibited T-cell infection by viral clearance through Langerin. Thus Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 infection, and strategies to combat infection must enhance, preserve or, at the very least, not interfere with Langerin expression and function.


Top of page

1. Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, VU University Medical Center, van de Boechorstraat 7, 1081BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
2. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital of Geneva, 24 Rue Micheli-du-Crest, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Department of Medical Oncology, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Correspondence to: Teunis B H Geijtenbeek1 e-mail: t.geijtenbeek@vumc.nl


http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/abs/nm1541.html




Now I personally think that research published in the world's top science journal Nature is more credible than research published by American doctors who practise circumcision for money.

 

There is "no medical reason for it whatsoever, only outdated ritual and cultural reasons". Really? I would quote the medical reasons, but you wouldn't listen. You sound like Senator McCain - "the surge is working". You say it loud enough, and long enough, and pound the table enough, and some people will actually believe you. You insult 20% of the world's males with your drivel. And a lot of Brits over 50, especially upper class, public school Brits.

 

Look, the fact that the truth insults or hurts is not a reason to shy away from it.

There is no rational reason in favor of infant genital mutilation. Only irrational cultural reasons (I'm not saying these aren't important, I'm saying they are not rational).

I don't give a fkk about upper class public school Brits indoctrinated in the madness of Victorianism.

 

It really doesnt matter, there really is no difference what so ever

 

Mm, your chances of getting an STD and HIV-1 are much higher when you do it with a mutilated cock. (See the research quoted earlier).

So I think, for women, this is definitely something to take into account.

 

Idc, its not my penis. lol
If we ever have a son, im leaving the decision up to my husband, not me.

 

It's not your husband's penis either. No one has the right to make the decision to surgically alter the sexual organs of another person.

 

The "medical reason" for advocating circumcision in the puritanical English-speaking world was to prevent boys from masturbating and to reduce their sex drive, since masturbation was believed to have all sorts of horrendous consequences. I would hope that we now have a more enlightened view of masturbation.

As to those African studies, the most recent data show that the female partners of the males who were circumcised were MORE likely to become infected with HIV than the female partners of those who were not circumcised. Another victory for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

so far I've only been with a cut guy and personally, I think it looks pretty brutal (where it was cut) but I don't mind it. I've just decided that I'm not doing that to my kid.

 

Schlong - you are just wrong, wrong, wrong. You think that just by making sweeping statements, you can convince people you are right. It's like "The surge is working".

Many studies have shown conclusively that the underside of the foreskin has glands and tissue which are susceptible to the entry of STDs and HIV when the uncut penis has unprotected sex. After orgasm, the uncut penis goes soft and the foreskin returns to cover the glans. The wet, airless environment under the foreskin, if it is not cleaned immediately, is the pathway of STDs and HIV into the body. A circumcised penis, when it get soft and withdraws, exposes the STD and HIV virus which may be on it immediately to air, and the viruses swiftly die. That is why the authoritative recent studies in Africa and New Zealand show that there is a 50% more likely incidence of HIV and STDs in uncut penises than cut penises.

 

When it comes to which i like better i dont know. Ive only seen one my entire life and its my husbands, and im not sure if hes cut or not.

 

Cuff - usually when it is soft, the glans is still uncovered if he is circumcised, unless he has a short foreskin and likes to "wear" it skinned back so the glans shows all the time.