Im definitely against it,see why
www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

Hmm, Strange site. Well I cant say I am agianst it. That site is just some of the accidents that happen. Thats like saying are you agianst any medical procedure because accidents do happen.

-Guyute

there is a thread in ethics forum about this

Well it is a bad choice for some simply because circumcision causes a significant lack of sensation (well that also might be a good choice for some too).

Guyute...welcome dude.

Well I wouldn't do it for fun...
Guess it's ok for phimosis or chronic/reccuring balanitis (beats having your dick fall off) but to do it for any other reason is just plain daft.
Dee Cee

As I have been circumcized for nearly all my life, I have no idea if it causes any lack of sensation. All I know is that what I get seems like more than enough for me. (though I guess you can't really have too much) What I do know is that, having been in enough locker rooms, the uncircumcized penis is one of the ugliest things imaginable. I wouldn't pee out of one if I had the choice.

Additionally, I had an uncle who had to be circumcized at the age of 45 because of periodic infections. Because it was done so late in life he had to get a whole lot of stitches and had a lot of pain afterwards. He certainly wished he had it done at birth.

Evolutionarily, is it even conceivable that the foreskin could be a disadvantageous trait? :bugeye:

Well yeah. If women think it is ugly, it may hurt your chances at having children and passing on your genes. If you get an infection, you either die or can't have sex or something like that.

That's not what I mean, dude.

As in... how could it even exist today if it were a disadvantage?

Wouldn't it have been bred out long ago if it were biologically harmful, e.g. causing chronic infection?

why is hitler quoted on that site?

Where?

The message you have entered is too short.... blah...

Wouldn't necessarily breed out any faster than, lets say, the appendix or anything else. Remember that the human body only had to stay fully functional for 35 years and after that it was free to crap out. Now, everyone wants to get to at least 75.

It no doubt had a purpose in the days before underwear. It probably protected the glans and kept it from getting caloused. We don't need that today.

Ahhh... calluses... makes sense!

Can i ask how you found that site? what were you looking for and why?

I'm neither pro nor against, i don't have kids yet.

Against! The only reason against it is possible infections, but hey, lack of maintenance is just not an issue for most guys.

that was a shameless reaction based site designed solely to convince you of one point of view.
i'm ashamed to say it worked on me. but really i've been on the fence for a while leaning towards against but mostly at 'who cares'. finally taking a standpoint. there's no need to go around mutilating perfectly healthy babies.

would it get locked if i started a poll asking who is and who isn't?

Without medical reason, I'm against. I have had it done though, but I needed it, as mine was too small, and it was constricting the flow of urine through my penis (I discovered this aged four). Two other friends have also had the same problem, one needed circumcising too, and the other just needed a bit of alteration.

As to loss of sensitivity, well, what I've got works fine, so I have no grumbles.

I don't think it should be done to children on religious grounds, or just because the parents prefer it. It's not their right to deny the child the chance to make that decision for themselves, and I don't think you'd get many adults choosing to do it for no good reason.

I've got a condition called phimosis where the opening of my penis is very small when erect but it looks quite normal when flaccid. I probably should get circumcised or get some kind of surgery but I just don't want to. I never get infections down there and it is as easy to clean as a normal penis when flaccid.

One thing always bothers me though. If there are any women out there, what would u really think if your new date had a phimotic penis like me :eek: ??? I have gotten differing views off women in the past.

I'm entirely against circumcision, especially when it's done at a young age and without the consent of the individual being circumcised. It's nothing but a bizarre ritualistic mutilation of a boy's genitals and that's that. According to most medical sources I've consulted phimosis is pretty much the only medical problem that one needs to worry about if they keep their foreskin. Don't worry though, John Connellan, it is apparently very easy to treat with a topical steroid, getting circumcised to treat phimosis is like cutting off your fingers to prevent carpel tunnel syndrome. I’ll post some links to back up my position on that a little later, I’m in the computer commons of my university right now and I worry that people might freak out a bit if they catch me looking at websites with diagrams of big throbbing uncircumcised members.

Being a gay man I’ve handled quite a few peni in my time. Indeed I doubt that there’s a better authority short of actual medical training on the subject of penises than a gay man. We use them for business and pleasure, and never leave home without one! I myself was circumcised at a very young age, and of course have no memory of a foreskin, and was a bit confused the first time I saw one. Though I’ve been even more disheartened to learn that the flesh of the head of my penis shouldn’t be so damn rough, as it stands it’s a bit closer to being like the skin of the arch at the bottom of my foot, when it is in fact supposed to be moist and soft, not entirely unlike your tongue. We who have been circumcised are missing out on a lot of feeling down there, and it’s a damn shame!

ugh! disgusting new development on the circumcision front. kim cattrall uses a face cream made out of human foreskin. naomi campbell uses a placenta cream. what?!

Before I understood the idea that penises weren't this way to begin with (I am circumcised) the word "smegma (http://open-dictionary.com/Smegma)" was just a joke. Even when I came across it as a cool band name I gave no thought to circumcision.

And then one day I was at work and I looked at my boss after a co-worker walked away and whispered, "Okay, what's up with that smell?" My boss, a queen of queens, said calmly, "He's not circumcised. And he has poor hygeine."

Never smelled anything like it in my life; if I never come across that stench again, I'll be happy.

Even I can get stinky thereabout if I don't shower, but phack . . . . I wouldn't have said anything at all except that it was enough to literally make me sick, and few stenches that I've come across have that effect on me.

And that look of recollection on my boss' face told me I didn't want to know the story, even if it had nothing to do with the guy we were talking about.

I will confess, however, that having bled out my penis before with no documented cause (blindly hammering away with top-end antibiotics is not fun) has made me considerably more aware of its condition. Frankly, I wouldn't have thought that possible beforehand.

However, on reflection, looking back to that time of ginger handling and hypochondria, I can say I'm rather quite glad that I didn't have smegma issues to deal with as well.

Is it live or is it mammorex?° Is it a discharge, or is it just smegma?

Spend some time being absolutely paranoid about the future of your sexual function ... it changes the way you look at your penis.

__________
° mammorex - How many of you actually remember John Ritter in "Hooperman"?

look, people are still allowed to have abortions, the child has no choice in that, why bother complaining about a little piece of flesh.

It seems plainly obvious that it is the parents choice, be it on the grounds of religion or health.

This is a decision which they make for their child when it is too young to decide.

The website was one sided, as has been said before.

Just in from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3570223.stm):
Men who have been circumcised may be six times less likely to contract the HIV virus than uncircumcised men, research carried out in India suggests.

The study in the Lancet journal says that the thin foreskin tissue could be highly prone to HIV infection.

The latest study, which backs up earlier research in Africa, was carried out among 2,000-plus men in India.

Researchers say circumcision only reduces the risk of HIV infection - other sexual diseases are not affected.

A number of studies have shown that circumcision appears to lower the chances of contracting HIV. It seemed relevant.

Just in from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3570223.stm):It seemed relevant.


Is it the case that people who are circumcised are less likely to catch HIV if they have sex or that they just are more careful when they have sex and as a result catch it less.

What i mean is, how would they test to see if circumcision made a person less likely to catch a disease like HIV. Hey bob have unprotected sex with this person who has HIV and lets test if you get it?

The test seems odd. I could see how they might survey circumcised and uncirced men and see how often they sleep with people and whether or not they are infected, but this would prove nothing.

I would be more inclined to say, expecially in a third world country such as India, that people who are circumcised are generally from more health conscious families, and they therefore are more careful when having sex. Not that the actual circumcision itself plays any part in reducing the risk of HIV infection.

If you plan to have this procedure done later in life, as some do ... word of advice: Get it done professionally.....

so much uproar all of a sudden about priests but rabbis have been sucking on newborns' penises for centuries.

I think it's a plot against women. I've never had sex with an uncircumcised man (or woman, for that matter :) ) so I don't know this for sure, it's only a theory....but I think maybe the foreskin was God's version of a French tickler. Might make sex more enjoyable for the chick. But NOOOOOOOOOOO, can't have that, nope, uh uh, gotta get rid of that. Can't have our women happy. Sexual tension makes them clean better.


(Disclaimer: The foregoing post contains sarcasm, which is not intended to be taken literally by the reader. Any literal interpretation is done at the reader's own risk.)

I never looked good in a turtleneck, anyway.

Nebuchadnezzar

The second half of the BBC article reads, in part,
When Aids first began to emerge in Africa, researchers found that it was more prevalent in the east and south of the continent than in the west.

Differences in sexual behaviour were widely thought to be reason for this.

But some scientists argued that as circumcision was more common in west Africa, it could be reducing the risk of HIV infection, as the foreskin could be more susceptible to the virus than other parts of penis . . . .

. . . . They believe this may be because the foreskin contains cells that the virus specifically targets. Just as a starter.

Beyond that, I would have to subscribe to Lancet to give you a better answer.

luckily, i do. give me the lookup.

i'm having trouble finding it. which issue is it in?

I believe it will be the March 27, 2004 Lancet. Presently, I'm looking at WebMD (http://my.webmd.com/content/article/84/98159.htm?z=1728_00000_1000_ln_02):
It's long been noted that uncircumcised men are more likely that their foreskin-shorn brethren to acquire the virus that causes AIDS. What's less clear is whether it's because of their sexual behavior or that extra flap of skin.

In the latest study to try to settle the issue, Johns Hopkins researchers provide some compelling evidence that it's the foreskin itself. They find that independent of condom use or sexual activities, HIV infection occurs six to eight times more often in uncircumcised men than in those who have been circumcised.

In fact, despite their lower infection rates, circumcised men were more likely to report they didn't wear condoms during sex. Another twist: Unlike previous findings that also indicate a higher risk of other sexually transmitted diseases among the uncircumcised, the researchers find similar rates of those other STDS among both groups of men.

He points to what has been shown in previous studies: The foreskin is rich in certain cells that attract and bind with HIV. "These cells contain a marker that you might consider to be a magnet for HIV infection," he tells WebMD . . . .

. . . . "It's been well known from previous studies that circumcised men have a lower risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV infection, but no one is quite sure why," he says. "Some have hypothesized that circumcision is culturally linked to lower-risk behavior, while others suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of genital ulcer diseases and other STDS that themselves are associated with increased risk of HIV."

But in his study, published in the March 27 issue of The Lancet, his team finds that uncircumcised men did not have higher rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, and the virus that causes genital herpes -- three STDs linked to higher risk of HIV infection . . . .

. . . . The men studied were primarily either Hindu, who are typically uncircumcised, or Muslim, who are circumcised. All were HIV-negative at the beginning of the study, which lasted seven years, and were evaluated at least three times at a clinic that treats people with sexually transmitted diseases. By study's end, uncircumcised men had been infected with HIV between six to eight times more than those who had been circumcised . . . .

. . . . But it's also believed that because foreskin tissue is very thin, the act of intercourse causes min-abrasions -- tiny cracks in the skin -- that allows the virus to enter the body," he tells WebMD. "That doesn't happen with a circumcised penis."Edit: D'oh! At the end of the WebMD article: SOURCES: Reynolds, S. The Lancet, March 27, 2004; vol 363; pp 1039-1040 . . . . .

Silly me. Silly me.

well that doesn't come out until tomorrow so full text will have to wait until then.

note to mods: full text will be labelled 'copywritted material' and text will be removed after reasonable period of time

After it's posted I'd be willing to transfer it to an off-site web page according to Fair Use (http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/107.html). I would recommend it here, in the long run, but a number of obstacles present possible challenges. Namely, (A) We don't want a whole lot of long text here, and (B) it could be a rough time getting people used to how to do it (I would have to look up exactly what's required).

An unrelated article to the topic: Click here (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0225-05.htm) and jump to the bottom of the page for an example of a Fair Use notice. Beyond that, I don't know what else is required, though.

we do a lot of things to ourselves that my not be considered "natural". we cut our hair, nails, brush our teeth, wear clothing, weight lift, make fires to cook, talk on telephones and computers, etc... i do believe there is a case to be made for both sides. Vehement opposition to it (from earlier said western Europeon country) reminds me of possible other motives besides for the sake of "nature".

I'm entirely against circumcision, especially when it's done at a young age and without the consent of the individual being circumcised

This I believe is the most important aspect of the debate on circumcision.

I have two children including a boy now aged 22 years. My ex-wife and I decided that it is not our choice to make, whether circumcision or not. We decided that it is a future choice that our son can make for himself.
Just because it is easier done as a young child doesn't entitle us to overrule our childs future decision capacities.

I recenty asked my son whether we had made the right decision and his reply was: "to decide to give me a decision when you don't have the right to decide for me in the first place is a bit oxymoronic don't you think?"We had a bit of a laugh about it but true he was very grateful that he now has a choice, abeit a painful one maybe but at least his self determination is sustained.

One day medical science may find out the real purpose of the foreskin and I bet it's not just about keeping the penise warm and protected from abrasive underwear......the same could be said for the appendix and wisdom teeth....one day we may actually find out why they are part of our bodies

the appendix and wisdom teeth are for keeping the penis warm and protected? then i really wish i hadn't had mine taken out.

ha ha....oops maybe I should rephrase it....ha

Actually hygiene is not an issue. If you don't wipe your ass or wash your arm pits or for ladies that don't wash their crotch, well that is a matter of hygiene as well.

I have read medical literature that suggests that circumcision exposes the head of the penis to constant rubbing and causes it to lose sensativity.

That uncircumcised males have greater sensation during sex.

Damn I'm glad my parents never had me circumcised. I get to wash so much more often. Got to work up a good lather too.:D

If circumcision were useful, our Father would produce children already circumcised from their earthly mother's womb.
Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit which is good for man.

Like that useful cleft palate that a your Father gives a quarter million children each year?

:m: Peace.

If circumcision were useful, our Father would produce children already circumcised from their earthly mother's womb.
Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit which is good for man.

Agggaha. Cough. If God didn't want us to have sex he wouldn't have made all forms (mostly) of living creatures in the form of male and female and have given them the appendages, urge and pleasureable sensations that go with it.

If circumcision were useful, our Father would produce children already circumcised from their earthly mother's womb.
Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit which is good for man.

And had we any need for clothes we'd be born covered in warm protective garments! heheh.

circumcision? Leave it to the adult to make the choice where body modification is concerned. I think it is savage and terrible to subject a child to such a thing.

Well yeah. If women think it is ugly, it may hurt your chances at having children and passing on your genes.

Lol, can you imagine it. Six months of courtship, touching eachothers faces, kissing softly, walking hand in hand in the park, sharing experiences, finally deciding to commit to eachother for the rest of your lives, excitedly expecting a marraige to be filled with children but then when you are both standing naked before eachother ready to consumate your marraige in the honeymoon suite she turns round and says ...

Yuck, what is that disgusting piece of flesh??? Children with you sonny? No way, you disgust me, get out of my life!

hahahaha - I do not think women are that shallow and if they are then it was a serious mistake getting involved with them in the first place.

peace

c20

And had we any need for clothes we'd be born covered in warm protective garments! heheh.

Yeah, you're right. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/what768/Transcendental/happy.gif But we have already been covered with warm protective garments, but now man has begun to think that he himself is the garment, because he forgot what he truly looked like! Truly, the garment we are clothed with is our body.

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Genesis 3:21

Btw, what I said earlier was a quotation by Jesus in Gospel of Thomas (from memory) if you didn't know yet.


Agggaha. Cough. If God didn't want us to have sex he wouldn't have made all forms (mostly) of living creatures in the form of male and female and have given them the appendages, urge and pleasureable sensations that go with it.

Did I say that we shouldn't have sex? But in the end, we will not have sex anymore, because it belongs to the body, not to the pure spirit. Rather the sexual feelings still exist for the spirit for the same reason that the ground exist which we walk on. Without temptation, we can achieve nothing, but we should not fall for temptations. Without the ground, we can't jump.


Like that useful cleft palate that a your Father gives a quarter million children each year?

Yeah, but he gives them because of people's sins.

:m: Peace.

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. Genesis 3:21

Then why should be expect that the religious right is so offened by nudity and the public display of God's chosen wardrobe?


Btw, what I said earlier was a quotation by Jesus in Gospel of Thomas (from memory) if you didn't know yet.

And just who the hell cares. I sure don't. I want to know absolutely nothing about what the Bible says. I regret having ever even read it. A total waste of time and of good oxygen generating trees in its fabrication.


Did I say that we shouldn't have sex? But in the end, we will not have sex anymore, because it belongs to the body, not to the pure spirit. Rather the sexual feelings still exist for the spirit for the same reason that the ground exist which we walk on.

Without temptation, we can achieve nothing, but we should not fall for temptations. Without the ground, we can't jump.

Now you did rather fail or refuse to directly answer the question didn't you. Your response is mush mouthed garbled and meaningless poppy cock.


Yeah, but he gives them because of people's sins.

:m: Peace.

And you would know this how? This topic was about a biological and medical issue, not about the Bible and your belief in a God. You seem to support the view that our laws and constitution should enforce your views on all people. I dispise that arrogance and stupidity.

Yeah, but he gives them [cleft palates] because of people's sins.

So, your God punishes a new-born child for the sins of someone they have never met?

:rolleyes: Niiiice.

Then why should be expect that the religious right is so offened by nudity and the public display of God's chosen wardrobe?

Because people misuse everything. God has given everything to us, even himself, but people have made curses of everything.


And you would know this how? This topic was about a biological and medical issue, not about the Bible and your belief in a God. You seem to support the view that our laws and constitution should enforce your views on all people. I dispise that arrogance and stupidity.

All I have ever done is to express myself. I don't want people to believe me, only if they themselves agree with me.

If you don't want to see something, then ignore it.


So, your God punishes a new-born child for the sins of someone they have never met?

:rolleyes: Niiiice.

People's sins reach everywhere, even to the innocents. It is the human himself who punishes with love, the higher self which lives in him.

Save it for the Religion forum, thanks.

:m: Peace.

Yeah, ok