Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.[W:301]

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Who's history? What are you, some sort of holdover from the WWII Germany era? Spreading "history" like "they eat and/or sacrifice babies, desecrate churches, and oh yeah, cut off little boys pee-pee's if they are naughty?" Dude, if you have no other proof than some weird claim of "history," to refute what is clearly stated IN THEIR OWN RELIGIOUS TEXTS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, you have no leg to stand on. PERIOD!

Ignore what you want, but if you honestly think the history behind female circumcision and male circumcision don't have a lot in common you're simply ignorant of the practice.

Fine, you are entitled to your own opinion, no ones arguing that. I disagree, I believe doctors recommend it because it's benefits outweigh the ills as indicated in the cites I provided. Many parents agree, and are going to continue to act on their determinations regardless of your personal opinions on the matter.

Doctors recommend it for money. They are rarely good at actually articulating any sort of benefit besides "this might lower risk factor" arguments.

For my point of small boys, no, that is fact. If the mother or father takes the little boy to the doctors if there is a problem the doctor will regularly recommend removal even if it is not needed. The fact is that in 90% of the cases adjustment is all that is needed, and in the vast majority of the rest of the cases a small cut will do, but that has no bearing on how many small boys get their foreskins removed by doctors.

As for parents, they are usually ignorant and when the mother gives birth she usually has little idea what she is agreeing to have done to her boy.

 

[Jaxler]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

I think it should be done, and support parents who wish to have their male baby's circumcised. In the first place, medical groups still insist the benefits of circumcision for male babys far outweigh the risks.

Benefits of infant circumcision outweigh risks, top pediatrics group says - CNN.com

and..

"Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners." CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal

I could list more cites, but they pretty much say the same thing. In the second place, among certain religious traditions, it is an important act signifying commitment to their diety and should not be interfered with.

So if a parent does not want to, fine. But forbidding it? No.

So, you the risks of having it done outweigh the risks of the actual medical act, but I'll have you know that any defense you would have gained from circumcision would be given to you via use of a condom. I can see how the STD prevention thing is a viable argument, but only if you live in a country or area were plastics aren't around, which I would say the US isn't nor any other 1st world nation. I'd also say that cutting away at a person in order to show that you love gawd is wrong. I'll have you know, if the child chose this as a way to show conviction to god, then that's alright, but in this case the child is making no such agreement and this is just abuse.

 

[Jaxler]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Ignore what you want, but if you honestly think the history behind female circumcision and male circumcision don't have a lot in common you're simply ignorant of the practice.




Doctors recommend it for money. They are rarely good at actually articulating any sort of benefit besides "this might lower risk factor" arguments.

For my point of small boys, no, that is fact. If the mother or father takes the little boy to the doctors if there is a problem the doctor will regularly recommend removal even if it is not needed. The fact is that in 90% of the cases adjustment is all that is needed, and in the vast majority of the rest of the cases a small cut will do, but that has no bearing on how many small boys get their foreskins removed by doctors.

As for parents, they are usually ignorant and when the mother gives birth she usually has little idea what she is agreeing to have done to her boy.

DING DING DING! we have a winner! that is really the only reason why doctors recommend it. As far as protecting STDs a common and easily available condom would give higher quality of protection, while also not cutting off the most sensitive part of your body, thus making any sexual experience flat out ruined. Any person who has been circumcises will tell you exactly that, and while one can argue that doing this to a newborn who will never know pleasure, I'll ask you weather or not it's right to deny someone one of the most powerful feelings in the human experience? Cause I'd call that lasting harm.

[sorry for the double post, but the interwebs didn't actually show my second post, so i assumed it was gone.]

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Why do you people keep spreading this lie?

What, precisely, do you think I'm lying about? The part where it doesn't cause any serious harm, or the parth wheere it's better off done when you're a little kid than as an adult where you can remember it.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

What, precisely, do you think I'm lying about? The part where it doesn't cause any serious harm, or the parth wheere it's better off done when you're a little kid than as an adult where you can remember it.

The first part about serious harm. You either aren't aware of the harms it causes or you're lying.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

The first part about serious harm. You either aren't aware of the harms it causes or you're lying.

Or possibly that we disacggree on what constitutes 'serious' harm. I know it causes some hardm, such as reduced sexual pleasure, but I don't consider it serious.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Yes, although please don't parents.

 

[Jaxler]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Or possibly that we disacggree on what constitutes 'serious' harm. I know it causes some hardm, such as reduced sexual pleasure, but I don't consider it serious.

By reduce, if you ask any person who's been circumcised and can remember what it's like before hand, they'll tell you that it isn't so much reduced as it is nearly removed. They'll say sensitivity went from a 10 to a low tree. Now is robbing a human being of that something that you think parents should be advised to do?

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

By reduce, if you ask any person who's been circumcised and can remember what it's like before hand, they'll tell you that it isn't so much reduced as it is nearly removed. They'll say sensitivity went from a 10 to a low tree. Now is robbing a human being of that something that you think parents should be advised to do?

I'm not really sure I believe that, since there are a lot of circumcised men out there, and they probably wouldn't be as interested in sex if it was that bad.

But no, I don't think parents should be advised to do it, I think they should be legally allowed to do it.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Or possibly that we disacggree on what constitutes 'serious' harm. I know it causes some hardm, such as reduced sexual pleasure, but I don't consider it serious.

Just listing the functions makes you look like a fool..

Functions:
to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
to lubricate the glans.
to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
to serve as an aid to penetration.
to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner
The foreskin/glans combination produce a powerful anti mmicrobial compound called Langerin that keeps the area clean and disease free

Then to finish you off a simple explaining of how intercourse works is all that is needed. During intercourse with an uncut penis, the vaginal walls grip the outer penile skin, and the penis slides back and forth inside in the foreskin. This causes almost no friction against the vaginal walls and creates a pleasurable sensation for both the man and the woman. On the other hand, intercourse with a circumcised penis, the skin on the penile shaft rubs back and forth against the vaginal walls, and this is often the cause of sexual discomfort for women. Of course, its no surprise that study after study show that the majority of women prefer an uncut penis.

Perhaps it would be best if you understood the functions of the foreskin before you talk on the subject. The fact is male circumcision harms both men and women. Learn up before you just mindless support something in the future.

Btw, do you support FGM of any kind? Just wondering if you support gender equality or not.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Just listing the functions makes you look like a fool..

Functions:
to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
to lubricate the glans.
to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
to serve as an aid to penetration.
to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner
The foreskin/glans combination produce a powerful anti mmicrobial compound called Langerin that keeps the area clean and disease free

Then to finish you off a simple explaining of how intercourse works is all that is needed. During intercourse with an uncut penis, the vaginal walls grip the outer penile skin, and the penis slides back and forth inside in the foreskin. This causes almost no friction against the vaginal walls and creates a pleasurable sensation for both the man and the woman. On the other hand, intercourse with a circumcised penis, the skin on the penile shaft rubs back and forth against the vaginal walls, and this is often the cause of sexual discomfort for women. Of course, its no surprise that study after study show that the majority of women prefer an uncut penis.

Perhaps it would be best if you understood the functions of the foreskin before you talk on the subject. The fact is male circumcision harms both men and women. Learn up before you just mindless support something in the future.

I understand what a foreskin does just fine. As I pointed out to you, the disagreement here comes in whether any of that constitutes serious harm. It doesn't. A moderate loss of sexual pleasure is not serious harm. Millions of circumcised men have perfectly satisfying sex lives, and millions of women have perfectly satisfying sex lives with circumcised men.

The only one making a fool of themselves is you, since you have repeatedly ignored the point I'm making.

Btw, do you support FGM of any kind? Just wondering if you support gender equality or not.

I don't have a problem with some degree of female circumcision, but there are many types, and some go a lot further than just removing the foreskin in a man does.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

I understand what a foreskin does just fine. As I pointed out to you, the disagreement here comes in whether any of that constitutes serious harm. It doesn't. A moderate loss of sexual pleasure is not serious harm. Millions of circumcised men have perfectly satisfying sex lives, and millions of women have perfectly satisfying sex lives with circumcised men.

The only one making a fool of themselves is you, since you have repeatedly ignored the point I'm making.

Ummm...the list I mentioned is serious. Should I perhaps go through each one for you in detail? Maybe I should go through more in detail on what effects it has on women? Do you want to hear how this practice is one of the leading causes of women experiencing dryness during intercourse?

I don't have a problem with some degree of female circumcision, but there are many types, and some go a lot further than just removing the foreskin in a man does.

Well since this is comparable to removing the clitoral hood I imagine you support that, yes? It should however be noted removing the foreskin causes more harm than removing the hood alone.

Maybe you can offer me one benefit of circumcision? Want to try that? Please for the love of god don't try the STD crap. It has been throughly debunked.

 

[Buck Ewer]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children?

No. The risk of infection is too high. They should have a surgeon do the job.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Ummm...the list I mentioned is serious. Should I perhaps go through each one for you in detail? Maybe I should go through more in detail on what effects it has on women? Do you want to hear how this practice is one of the leading causes of women experiencing dryness during intercourse?

Oh no, dryness during intercourse. What a horrible problem. If only someone would invent some sort of lubricant that would fix that problem. Come on man, do you even hear yourself? That's not a serious problem. That's a very minor problem at worst.

Maybe you can offer me one benefit of circumcision? Want to try that? Please for the love of god don't try the STD crap. It has been throughly debunked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0

Circumcision: Get the Facts, Benefits, Risks & More

Circumcision (male): Why it's done - MayoClinic.com

There are benefits to circumcision.

 

[Helix]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

I'm curious what people think about female circumcision too. Many cultural/religious groups regularly practice female circumcision. So why is that a felony, while male circumcision is legal?

Do you support the legality of one but not the other? If so, why?

entirely different. female circumcision would be like cutting off the entire penis, not just the foreskin.

as for whether it should be done in males, i don't really care one way or the other. should i ever have a son, i'm not sure which way i'll go.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Oh no, dryness during intercourse. What a horrible problem. If only someone would invent some sort of lubricant that would fix that problem. Come on man, do you even hear yourself? That's not a serious problem. That's a very minor problem at worst.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0

Circumcision: Get the Facts, Benefits, Risks & More

Circumcision (male): Why it's done - MayoClinic.com

There are benefits to circumcision.

Not to mention reduced sensitivity in the head of the male penis actually HELPS by prolonging the sex act and giving the woman a better chance of enjoying it too.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Ummm...the list I mentioned is serious. Should I perhaps go through each one for you in detail? Maybe I should go through more in detail on what effects it has on women? Do you want to hear how this practice is one of the leading causes of women experiencing dryness during intercourse?

Even if this were true (which I doubt), this is exactly why one would generally tend to engage in foreplay beforehand.

If you can't get your partner appropriately "warmed up" before insertion, that is a problem with your technique, not your equipment.

Well since this is comparable to removing the clitoral hood I imagine you support that, yes? It should however be noted removing the foreskin causes more harm than removing the hood alone.

A woman is more or less incapable of most of the orgasms she could ever normally experience without a clitoris. The same is not true of a man without a foreskin.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Hell no! Parents should not be allowed to permanently alter their children's bodies like that. If someone wants to be circumcised, they can do it when they are adults and can make an informed choice. Forcing that on a child is cruelty.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Public opinion has changed over the last 30 years, and among the people I know, whether to circumcise or not is about 50/50. There is a medical reason to be circumsized; a very healthy and extremely clean guy who isn't can host bacteria that can mean very unpleasant trouble for his partner. My son was circumcised when he was 3 days old in the hospital, and his uncircumcised father was adamant about it.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

As for the larger question, which is whether parents should be "allowed" to make medical decisions for their children, yes.

 

[clownboy]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

AFAIK parents don't usually circumcise their children now, most times a medical professional performs the circumcision. Easy to keep clean, no smegma, less chance of infection for yourself and your partner(s) and if there was a loss of sensitivity, well, I'm not sure I could have handled the full feeling, pretty intense as it is.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Holey @#$%%#, not this AGAIN.



You don't like circumcision, don't circumcise your kids. Otherwise GFTO of my medical choices for my child; there's no medical consensus that it is a bad thing.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Even if this were true (which I doubt), this is exactly why one would generally tend to engage in foreplay beforehand.

Look it up. The information is readily available if you actually bother to learn before you post.

If you can't get your partner appropriately "warmed up" before insertion, that is a problem with your technique, not your equipment.

Care to tell me exactly how that makes up the for the difference when the uncut man can do the same exact thing? Would you care to even bother to put an argument that I can't easily destroy? Of course, I didn't even bother explaining myself here and your argument is still defeated. Sad, ain't it?

A woman is more or less incapable of most of the orgasms she could ever normally experience without a clitoris. The same is not true of a man without a foreskin.

Who said you couldn't finish? You aren't very good with the pleasure bit, are you?

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

AFAIK parents don't usually circumcise their children now, most times a medical professional performs the circumcision. Easy to keep clean, no smegma, less chance of infection for yourself and your partner(s) and if there was a loss of sensitivity, well, I'm not sure I could have handled the full feeling, pretty intense as it is.

To the most part the foreskin cleans itself during urination. As I said, the foreskin/glans combination produce a anti mmicrobial compound called Langerin. Langerin wards off bacteria, and keeps the area clean, and disease free.

You guys please stop spreading stupid myths and learn how the penis works.

As for infection, again a stupid myth. I will go into that one later once I see it a few more times.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Look it up. The information is readily available if you actually bother to learn before you post.

It looks to me like you're simply too lazy to provide evidence to support your arguments. :roll:

Care to tell me exactly how that makes up the for the difference when the uncut man can do the same exact thing? Would you care to even bother to put an argument that I can't easily destroy? Of course, I didn't even bother explaining myself here and your argument is still defeated. Sad, ain't it?

You haven't even demonstrated that there is a difference.

Besides, the vast majority of women do not achieve orgasm through strictly penetrative sex anyway. Additional stimulation of the clitoris is usually required.

Circumcision, if it made any difference at all, would be a rather minor factor in the face of this reality.

Who said you couldn't finish? You aren't very good with the pleasure bit, are you?

A circumcised female cannot "finish." A circumcised male can.

It was your stupid comparison. Don't get pissy with me simply because I picked out its flaws.

You guys please stop spreading stupid myths and learn how the penis works.

Says the man who accepts the results of a single unsubstantiated study that involved less than 200 participants as solid gold universal truth. :roll: