• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Circumcision: Yay or Nay?

Circumcision (male only): Yay or Nay?

  • I am a man and I am cut.

    Votes: 20 51.3%
  • I am a man and I am uncut.

    Votes: 9 23.1%
  • I am a woman and I prefer a penis to be cut.

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • I am a woman and I prefer a penis to be uncut.

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Yes, by all means, snip them all! Twice!

    Votes: 2 5.1%
  • No, this is a barbaric practice. Leave those 'lil guys alone!

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • No real opinion.

    Votes: 8 20.5%

  • Total voters
    39
Like I said, all of the data I provided in this thread is from the Mayo Clinic and American Association of Pediatrics based on studies they performed.

And...? They say that cut men's penises still work. I never argued that.

I am arguing that sensation is lost routinely. I have provided evidence to that effect.
 
No, cutting the frenulum is sometimes routine with getting circumcised. Depends on your doctor. It is also not required to treat phimosis. In fact, the frenulum has nothing at all to do with phimosis. Phimosis has to do with the opening of the foreskin.

Furthermore, phimosis is usually treatable without surgery, except in extreme cases. I know men who had it as children, got non-surgical treatment, and have no issues as adults.

Post some evidence that doctors routinely use the "other" type of circumcision on infants. Phimosis CAN be cured without surgery, but not always, and the frenulum has EVERYTHING to do with phimosis.

"The frenulum is a body part that connects the glans penis to the ridged band of the foreskin. The frenulum functions as a tether. It is a relatively inelastic section of tissue extending from the meatus to the ridged band on an intact man. The frenulum is connected to the inner foreskin by a web. The frenulum prevents the intact foreskin from retracting and fully exposing the inner foreskin, like it is on a circumcised man."
 
And...? They say that cut men's penises still work. I never argued that.

I am arguing that sensation is lost routinely. I have provided evidence to that effect.

Obviously you didn't read my links. One of my links clearly states that it does not affect sensation enough to make a difference for either the man or woman during sexual activity. The only point I am arguing is whether or not a foreskin makes sex better or not as good. Whether or not they lose some sensation is not what I am arguing about.
 
Oh yes, and because Henrin insists that we ban circumcision.
 
Post some evidence that doctors routinely use the "other" type of circumcision on infants. Phimosis CAN be cured without surgery, but not always, and the frenulum has EVERYTHING to do with phimosis.

"The frenulum is a body part that connects the glans penis to the ridged band of the foreskin. The frenulum functions as a tether. It is a relatively inelastic section of tissue extending from the meatus to the ridged band on an intact man. The frenulum is connected to the inner foreskin by a web. The frenulum prevents the intact foreskin from retracting and fully exposing the inner foreskin, like it is on a circumcised man."

Um, I just did. You quoted the post in which I very specifically quoted the frequency of frenulum removal in circumcision. It's as high as a third of cases. Do you read stuff before you reply?

You don't seem to understand penis anatomy.

Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is not wide enough to allow it to fully retract over the head of the penis. His frenulum is not what is causing or contributing to the phimosis.

An inelastic frenulum would prevent the foreskin from moving BELOW the head of the penis to its full extent It may also prevent full extension, as a matter of fact. Some men with phimosis also have frenulum breve, but they are two distinct conditions with two different causes. Phimosis is caused by a small opening of the foreskin. Frenulum breve is caused by having a frenulum that is too short.

That is why these two conditions have, you know... two different names.
 
Um, I just did. You quoted the post in which I very specifically quoted the frequency of frenulum removal in routine circumcision. Do you read stuff before you reply?

You don't seem to understand penis anatomy.

Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is not wide enough to allow it to fully retract over the head of the penis. His frenulum is not what is causing or contributing to the phimosis.

An inelastic frenulum would prevent the foreskin from moving BELOW the head of the penis. It may also prevent full extension, as a matter of fact. Some men with phimosis also have frenulum breve, but they are two distinct conditions with two different causes. Phimosis is caused by a small opening of the foreskin. Frenulum breve is caused by having a frenulum that is too short.

Again, what is stated in my post is from an article, but regardless of any of that, a frenectomy is used to treat phimosis. It is only a cut in the frenulum. It's all connected.

*Warning* Penis pictures!

Moderator's Warning:
Link removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, what is stated in my post is from an article, but regardless of any of that, a frenectomy is used to treat phimosis. It is only a cut in the frenulum. It's all connected.

*Warning* Penis pictures!

Moderator's Warning:
Link removed

What you just linked to is a treatment for frenulum breve, which is a totally different disorder. The link even says "frenulum breve."

As a matter of fact, here's a quote from your link which explains how phimosis and frenulum breve are different in terms of their treatment.

A tight foreskin (phimosis) can often be stretched by regular exercises but not in all cases. A frenulum which is too short can almost never be stretched sufficiently.

Phimosis = tight foreskin

Frenulum breve = short frenulum
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes, and because Henrin insists that we ban circumcision.

I don't like the word ban as I'm not for banning it out right, but just banning of the removal of healthy unconsenting infants foreskins. I don't even understand why that is bad and I don't understand your argument either. Seriously, it revolves around potential problems, ignoring damage done, the ignoring of lack of consent of the child and their innate right to their body. It's just a bizarre cruel argument. It can be described as nothing else.

Then to act like you have higher ground here, is something I don't understand at all. Seriously, things get banned and yes sometimes its necessary. This is a libertarian saying that. You know the people that don't even want to act on discrimination in the work place. If I'm here acting it must be pretty horrible. Hell, even in abortion I don't want to ban it. I'm against it sure, but banning it is not a solution, only a stand for life which by itself is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
What you just linked to is a treatment for frenulum breve, which is a totally different disorder. The link even says "frenulum breve."

As a matter of fact, here's a quote from your link which explains how phimosis and frenulum breve are different in terms of their treatment.



Phimosis = tight foreskin

Frenulum breve = short frenulum

Phimosis is a tightening of the foreskin. Here are ways in which it is treated. The third one would be a frenectomy (ventral slit). It all depends on the severity of the condition.
Moderator's Warning:
Link removed


Surgical methods range from the complete removal of the foreskin to more minor operations to relieve foreskin tightness:

-Circumcision is sometimes performed for pathological phimosis, and is effective.

-Dorsal slit (superincision) is a single incision along the upper length of the foreskin from the tip to the corona, exposing the glans without removing any tissue.

-Ventral slit (subterincision) is an incision along the lower length of the foreskin from the tip of the frenulum to the base of the glans, removing the frenulum in the process. Often used when frenulum breve occurs alongside the phimosis.

-Preputioplasty, in which a limited dorsal slit with transverse closure is made along the constricting band of skin[35][36] can be an effective alternative to circumcision.[23] It has the advantage of only limited pain and a short time of healing relative to circumcision, and avoids cosmetic effects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I don't know what you're ranting about, but I've provided my links and information on why some people choose to have their children circumcised. You can continue to ask somebody else.

Because of potential risk. I know and I get that, but seriously you are causing irreversible harm to avoid a possible harm in the future. Its doesn't even begin to make sense logically.
 
I understand that. I am pointing out that you are talking about a totally different disorder, and falsely attributing the things it causes to phimosis. Your own links say the same. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

In fact, that list you just posted of ways to treat phimosis says that a ventral slit/frenecomy is performed when frenulum breve occurs ALONG WITH phimosis. It is not used for phimosis alone. Once again, your own post proves you wrong. Here, let me make it super clear for you. From you post:

-Ventral slit (subterincision) is an incision along the lower length of the foreskin from the tip of the frenulum to the base of the glans, removing the frenulum in the process. Often used when frenulum breve occurs alongside the phimosis.

You quote my posts, then ask me questions the answers to which are in the posts you just quoted. You post links you obviously didn't read and then ignore it when I point out that your own links contradict the point you think you're making.

You are obviously not in the mood for an honest debate.
 
I understand that. I am pointing out that you are talking about a totally different disorder, and falsely attributing the things it causes to phimosis. Your own links say the same. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

In fact, that list you just posted of ways to treat phimosis says that a ventral slit/frenecomy is performed when frenulum breve occurs ALONG WITH phimosis. It is not used for phimosis alone. Once again, your own post proves you wrong. Here, let me make it super clear for you. From you post:



You quote my posts, then ask me questions the answers to which are in the posts you just quoted. You post links you obviously didn't read and then ignore it when I point out that your own links contradict the point you think you're making.

You are obviously not in the mood for an honest debate.

Often, it says often performed. It depends upon the severity of the condition. You are the one who claimed that frenectomies are performed for cosmetic reasons. I told you that is not always the case, that it is a legitimate surgical procedure. I don't think (at least here in America) that routine circumcisions performed on newborns are so invasive as you were trying to make it sound.
 
Often, it says often performed. It depends upon the severity of the condition. You are the one who claimed that frenectomies are performed for cosmetic reasons. I told you that is not always the case, that it is a legitimate surgical procedure. I don't think (at least here in America) that routine circumcisions performed on newborns are so invasive as you were trying to make it sound.

My sources said that roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of circumcised men had their frenulums cut. The only medical reason to cut a boy's frenulum is in the presence of frenulum breve.

How common is frenulum breve?

It is important to note that the condition occurs in an estimated five percent of uncircumcised men

What Is Frenulum Breve?

So explain to me what the reasoning was for the other 20-30%.
 
Often, it says often performed. It depends upon the severity of the condition. You are the one who claimed that frenectomies are performed for cosmetic reasons. I told you that is not always the case, that it is a legitimate surgical procedure. I don't think (at least here in America) that routine circumcisions performed on newborns are so invasive as you were trying to make it sound.

I never said they weren't, just like I never said there is never a medical reason to circumcise. You're attacking arguments I never made.

Yes, it depends whether they have something other than phimosis, and also on the mood of the doctor. Explain to me why a third of men have their frenulums removed when, for most of them, there is no medical reason for doing so.

You don't find circumcision to be invasive in general? I'm sorry, do you even know what circumcision is?
 
Phimosis is a tightening of the foreskin. Here are ways in which it is treated. The third one would be a frenectomy (ventral slit). It all depends on the severity of the condition.
Moderator's Warning:
Link removed


Surgical methods range from the complete removal of the foreskin to more minor operations to relieve foreskin tightness:

-Circumcision is sometimes performed for pathological phimosis, and is effective.

-Dorsal slit (superincision) is a single incision along the upper length of the foreskin from the tip to the corona, exposing the glans without removing any tissue.

-Ventral slit (subterincision) is an incision along the lower length of the foreskin from the tip of the frenulum to the base of the glans, removing the frenulum in the process. Often used when frenulum breve occurs alongside the phimosis.

-Preputioplasty, in which a limited dorsal slit with transverse closure is made along the constricting band of skin[35][36] can be an effective alternative to circumcision.[23] It has the advantage of only limited pain and a short time of healing relative to circumcision, and avoids cosmetic effects.

ignore , chris ,they are more knowledgeable than the doctors .)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ignore , chris ,they are more knowledgeable than the doctors .)

Doctors can tell the difference between two different words that describe two different disorders. You and ChirsL apparently can't.
 
I didn't smile much after my ovarian cyst removal, but I was tap dancing in my wheelchair on my way out of the hospital after my tubal. They were almost exactly the same procedure. Same surgical site, same method of surgery, and one ruined my week while the other one had my celebrating even while I was still doing the "I've got a hole in my abdominal wall" shuffle.

Pain and discomfort doesn't stop a good thing from being a good thing. If you're not happy about it, it means one of two things: either you didn't really have much choice (medical problem/non-consent), or you shouldn't have done it.

I didn't have much of a choice... But, even if I did (and was happy about it), it wouldn't negate the fact that pain is going to be something that just happens to be there for quite some time (well, depending on how one deals with pain, it could be a lesser amount of time or more).

That's one thing I have issue with when it comes to circumcisions. Guys say that they're glad that they had it done when they were babies because they can't remember the procedure or the pain from it; does that mean that they didn't feel pain while it was done and then after?

Sure, I felt a lot of pain after my procedures, but I can't currently recall the pain that I felt.
 
ignore , chris ,they are more knowledgeable than the doctors .)

You mean more knowledgeable than the doctors that see benefits of immediate circumcision versus those who think the opposite, right?
 
Obviously you didn't read my links. One of my links clearly states that it does not affect sensation enough to make a difference for either the man or woman during sexual activity. The only point I am arguing is whether or not a foreskin makes sex better or not as good. Whether or not they lose some sensation is not what I am arguing about.

As an uncircumsized man, I could never know when it feels like to be circumsized. But, given that an uncircumsized penis has twice as many nerve ending as a circumsized one, I'd say with 100% accuracy that sensation is lost. Just because it's not enough to stop a man from having an orgasm doesn't mean the sensation is or isn't greatly lessened.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Folks, please do not, under and circumstances, post or link to pages with nude images, even if those images are medically related. The penalties can range up to permanent banning.
 
As an uncircumsized man, I could never know when it feels like to be circumsized. But, given that an uncircumsized penis has twice as many nerve ending as a circumsized one, I'd say with 100% accuracy that sensation is lost. Just because it's not enough to stop a man from having an orgasm doesn't mean the sensation is or isn't greatly lessened.
As (I believe) the only person in this thread who has experienced both, I feel it incumbent upon me to at least weigh in on this. Look, I'm not a doctor. I don't know how many nerve endings were in that little piece of skin or whatever, but I do know how it felt before, and how it feels now. I can say without an ounce of hesitation that there has been no loss of sensation whatsoever when it comes to sexual pleasure, and in fact the penile pleasure that I derive from intercourse has only gotten better since being snipped. Like, by leaps and bounds, better. I don't remember who said it, but someone earlier in the thread compared the feeling of circumcised sex (without ever having experienced it, IIRC) to having a condom on. My experience has been the exact opposite. Having sex without foreskin has been like finally doing it without a condom. Now, there has been some dulling of sensation, I guess, but only as far as pain goes. For example, when I first got circumcised, taking a shower was really painful because I was so sensitive down there that every drop of water from the spray was like a razor blade to the dick. That went away after a couple months. So did the pain and discomfort of my clothing rubbing against it. That's it, though. None of that loss, or adjustment of sensation, (a more accurate word, imo) has carried over into sexual pleasure. Again, in that department, I can only testify to improvement. VAST improvement.

Now, maybe it's different for a man who has been circumcised all his life, I dunno. I won't make presumptions. I only know what I know.

Also, to the guy who said he was mad at his parents for circumcising him as a baby, I just want you to know that that door swings both ways, my friend. The month that I spent recovering from my circumcision, at 25 years old, was an absolute nightmare. I honestly hope that none of you turtleneck wearers here will have to go through that in your lives, but unfortunately some of you will. Imagine having stitches all the way around the shaft of your dick, right under the rim of the head. Imagine being afraid to go to sleep, because you wake up in agony, because you have gotten a hard-on in your sleep. This happened to me almost every night. Think of the trauma of that, lol! Luckily the pain always killed my erections before I got hard enough to pop a stitch. I can only imagine how that would have felt, eesh. Imagine the feeling of your underwear or the shower spray feeling like a belt sander. And this is not even to mention the terrible year leading up to it when my foreskin was giving me all kinds of problems. It reeeeeally sucks, guys. And I have to admit, there is definitely a part of me that is resentful of my parents (more specifically my stubborn mother) for their choice. It's hard not to be a at least a little bit bitter knowing that they could have easily spared me all that, by simply getting it out of the way when I was too young to remember, or to think about it, too young to get erections, young enough that stitches wouldn't have been required, and when there would have been extra health benefits involved that apparently you don't get having it done later in life. All I'm saying is that parents could be damned if they do, and they could be damned if they don't. You never know.

All I know is that, having gone through what I went through, there is no way in hell I'll choose not to circumcise my son. And I don't care what anybody thinks of it.

Just my two cents.
 
As (I believe) the only person in this thread who has experienced both, I feel it incumbent upon me to at least weigh in on this. Look, I'm not a doctor.
Why did you have it done?
 
Why did you have it done?

For almost a year I was having a problem with my foreskin. I had been having sex for ten years already, uncircumcised, and this was a totally new thing that kinda just sprang up. Basically, everything was fine when I was flaccid, but when I would get erect I was having a hard time pulling the foreskin back over the head of Big Oscar (shout out!). It's like it was too tight. Trying to force it back was painful, and so was intercourse because the mechanics of thrusting kinda automatically tries to force it back. So thrusting hurt, and that sucked. And the pain started causing me to lose erections at very inopportune and embarrassing moments, too. Needless to say this was causing a sizable problem in my romantic and sexual life. My GF at the time was very cool about the whole thing, but after awhile she started subtly suggesting that I go let a doctor take a look at the machinery. Subtlety eventually became outright nagging, and insistence.

As much as I tried to ignore the problem, procrastinate, and tell myself that it would sort itself out on it's own, after awhile I knew I had to bite the bullet. So I went to the urologist, and he examined me for about 15 seconds. Told me yep, it was just as he'd suspected. Phimosis. Even in a flaccid state, he said he could see that the opening of my foreskin was relatively tight in proportion to the size of Oscar's noggin. He told me that it was a pretty common thing, and that it was good that I came in because a lot of men just don't do anything about it and try to live with it to save themselves an embarrassing visit to the dick doc. I believe it, because I have no idea how long I would have tried to ignore it if it hadn't been for Steph's nagging. Thank Gosh for nagging women, huh fellas? Wait, what the **** did I just say...?? :shock:

He explained that there were a couple of corrective options, mainly incisions or stretching, but warned that they were just as painful as circumcision, but were a long drawn out process and not even guaranteed to fix the problem, or even improve it. So he recommended that I just cowboy up and get snipped and put it behind me. So after quickly going through the 5 stages of grief and discussing it with Oscar, I agreed and made an appointment.

That's pretty much it. Two weeks later my favorite appendage was all wrapped up in gauze like a mummy, and after the worst month of my life during which I fully recovered, everything's been smooth sailing.
 
Back
Top Bottom