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

[Etoner]

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

Foreskin is filthy and great for STDs.

 

[Henrin]

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

Foreskin is filthy and great for STDs.

Do you know what a condom is? Yes, lets remove body parts when we have condoms for a buck. Brilliant.

 

[Etoner]

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.

Piercing ears is cruel as well. Braces hurt a lot. Sucks to get wisdom teeth pulled.

Where do you draw the line? How about we ban procedures that have no evidence for any medical benefit whatsoever.

Like piercing ears.

 

[Henrin]

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

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.

Seriously, losing sensitivity is now a good thing because the guy can't muster up the ability to last? :Triple facepalm:

 

[Etoner]

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

Seriously, losing sensitivity is now a good thing because the guy can't muster up the ability to last? :Triple facepalm:

Hundreds of millions of circumcised Muslims and Jews having sex every day. They don't seem to be complaining.

And they keep making more little Muslims and Jews, which means their penises are sensitive enough to cause ejaculation.

 

[Henrin]

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

Hundreds of millions of circumcised Muslims and Jews having sex every day. They don't seem to be complaining.

And they keep making more little Muslims and Jews, which means their penises are sensitive enough to cause ejaculation.

I love how you guys accept the argument and try to figure out how it's a good thing or that it doesn't matter. Unbelievable and what is perhaps more unbelievable is that your major point seems to be that they can still finish. It's just such a bad approach to take in a debate.

 

[Captain Adverse]

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

Seriously, losing sensitivity is now a good thing because the guy can't muster up the ability to last? :Triple facepalm:

Yeah, yeah, you are like a broken record. Despite your lists of uncircumsized benefits, ALL of which are some sort of tantric preference, the science still stands. We don't care what you do with your kids. We don't care if other people don't want the procedure.

But those of us who accept the benefits will continue to opt to do so with our children. The choice to do so for our children will probably continue until scientific evidence not only refutes the health benefits, but also shows clear medical harm.

That second point is important if, in American society at least, the government wants interfere in an established practice of religion.

 

[justabubba]

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

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.

probably why jewish women back in the day wanted the procedure's requirement reduced to writing

 

[justabubba]

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.

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

hoping the women in the group can offer any insight about this
would rather not accept a guy's insistence that it is true
my future grandsons thank you for your first hand observations

 

[Henrin]

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

Yeah, yeah, you are like a broken record. Despite your lists of uncircumsized benefits, ALL of which are some sort of tantric preference, the science still stands. We don't care what you do with your kids. We don't care if other people don't want the procedure.

Tantric preference? WHAT? The list is scientific fact and the preference is obviously what is natural. What kind of nonsense is this?

But those of us who accept the benefits will continue to opt to do so with our children. The choice to do so for our children will probably continue until scientific evidence not only refutes the health benefits, but also shows clear medical harm.

Name me one benefit. :lamo

That second point is important if, in American society at least, the government wants interfere in an established practice of religion.

Haha...you mean like how they have stopped religious practices that have been found to cause harm before.

 

[Henrin]

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

hoping the women in the group can offer any insight about this
would rather not accept a guy's insistence that it is true
my future grandsons thank you for your first hand observations

There is many studies that say what I did there. I will try to find a few for you.

 

[justabubba]

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

There is many studies that say what I did there. I will try to find a few for you.

was hoping we could do a mini study here, where the female forum members could advise us if uncircumcised members were preferable to circumcised members as you have indicated

 

[Henrin]

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

was hoping we could do a mini study here, where the female forum members could advise us if uncircumcised members were preferable to circumcised members as you have indicated

Start a thread for that. Keep in mind if they don't know the difference their opinion will be worthless.

 

[Gathomas88]

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

was hoping we could do a mini study here, where the female forum members could advise us if uncircumcised members were preferable to circumcised members as you have indicated

That actually sounds like a great idea. You know... Seeing as how he adamantly refuses to link any of these "many studies" that would actually back up his claims. :roll:

 

[justabubba]

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

Start a thread for that. Keep in mind if they don't know the difference their opinion will be worthless.

disagree
if they have no preference, their opinion would be quite valid
it would only be for those who had not experienced one or the other whose opinion would not provide insight into this question

 

[Henrin]

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

disagree
if they have no preference, their opinion would be quite valid
it would only be for those who had not experienced one or the other whose opinion would not provide insight into this question

Exactly. If they didn't experience one or the other they opinion is not valid.

 

[Henrin]

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

That actually sounds like a great idea. You know... Seeing as how he adamantly refuses to link any of these "many studies" that would actually back up his claims. :roll:

When did I refuse to do anything?

I find it funny this is the point you guys want to talk about. Instead of dealing with the science I put down you want to talk about what women think which is of little importance. :lamo

 

[justabubba]

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

When did I refuse to do anything?

I find it funny this is the point you guys want to talk about. Instead of dealing with the science I put down you want to talk about what women think which is of little importance. :lamo

YOU are the one who told us what women think
you insisted that women think uncircumcised members are preferrable to circumcised members

 

[Henrin]

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

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

Do you even understand that your foreplay argument does nothing to deal with my argument? You can't counter the lack of lubrication from the man with saying they can just take part in foreplay to make up the difference. For one because it doesn't make up the difference and for another it does nothing to counter the fact damage was done and it does cause problems.

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

Really now? :lamo

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

Wow, you are the source of irrelevant arguments.

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

Care to provide me an argument that says that would be the case? Btw, great job in admitting harm. :lamo I'm here trying to show a harm exists and you just say "it's not that bad". Priceless.

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

I was talking about the man. Being able to finish has nothing to do with the fact of decreased pleasure during the act. I can't believe you guys somehow think this point that the man can still finish is somehow relevant to my point.

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

Say what? Do you care to make up anything else?

 

[Etoner]

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

YOU are the one who told us what women think
you insisted that women think uncircumcised members are preferrable to circumcised members

I've had women tell me that uncut dicks are disgusting and taste horrible.

 

[Etoner]

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

I love how you guys accept the argument and try to figure out how it's a good thing or that it doesn't matter. Unbelievable and what is perhaps more unbelievable is that your major point seems to be that they can still finish. It's just such a bad approach to take in a debate.

There is a great deal of evidence that circumcision has medical benefits.

You guys love to argue that the human body was made perfectly and nothing is there that has no function or disadvantage.

Tell that to guys who need their tailbone removed, appendix removed, and wisdom teeth removed.

Before we start banning circumcision and other procedures that have an actual medical benefit, let's first ban procedures that have no benefit whatsoever and cause pain, like ear piercing.

 

[justabubba]

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

Do you even understand that your foreplay argument does nothing to deal with my argument? You can't counter the lack of lubrication from the man with saying they can just take part in foreplay to make up the difference. For one because it doesn't make up the difference and for another it does nothing to counter the fact damage was done and it does cause problems.



Really now? :lamo




Wow, you are the source of irrelevant arguments.



Care to provide me an argument that says that would be the case? Btw, great job in admitting harm. :lamo I'm here trying to show a harm exists and you just say "it's not that bad". Priceless.



I was talking about the man. Being able to finish has nothing to do with the fact of decreased pleasure during the act. I can't believe you guys somehow think this point that the man can still finish is somehow relevant to my point.



Say what? Do you care to make up anything else?

VERY relevant, actually
your position is that the uncircumcised organ is more sensitive
the alternative position is that the purported desensitization does not inhibit ejaculation
which causes the question to be made, how significant is any perceived desensitization

one could even offer that circumcised men enjoy a longetivity of sensation that uncut men do not

Say what? Do you care to make up anything else

 

[Henrin]

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

There is a great deal of evidence that circumcision has medical benefits.

Like???

You guys love to argue that the human body was made perfectly and nothing is there that has no function or disadvantage.

Every part of the body has a function and there is no disadvantages from having all your healthy parts.

Tell that to guys who need their tailbone removed, appendix removed, and wisdom teeth removed.

Yawn... please do not equate defect or failure with normal function.

Before we start banning circumcision and other procedures that have an actual medical benefit, let's first ban procedures that have no benefit whatsoever and cause pain, like ear piercing.

Yeah, I'm thinking banning things that cause harm are all on the table, but banning things should be in the order of harm caused. Sorry, but ear piercings go way down the list.

 

[Henrin]

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

VERY relevant, actually
your position is that the uncircumcised organ is more sensitive

That is only part of my position, but yes.

the alternative position is that the purported desensitization does not inhibit ejaculation
which causes the question to be made, how significant is any perceived desensitization

That is admitting a loss of sensation. Making that argument causes you to lose the debate. However, no you can't make that argument. You can't equate an ability to finish with the ability to feel equal pleasure during. Obviously the guy can still finish and I made no claims to say otherwise, so it's effectively a red-herring.

one could even offer that circumcised men enjoy a longetivity of sensation that uncut men do not

How can you do that exactly? What could it possibly be your argument that uncut man can't last long? Well? I would love, absolutely love to hear this stupid as ****ing hell argument.

 

[Etoner]

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

Like???

It really doesn't, sorry.

Yawn... please do not argue defect or failure with a normal function.

Yeah, I'm thinking banning things that cause harm are all on the table, but banning things should be in the order of harm caused. Sorry, but ear piercings go way down the list.

You haven't done any internet research into the possible medical benefits?

You're not even the least bit curious as to the opposing side of this discussion?

Wow.