Nonsense.
It's not a difficult decision in the least.
I'm glad it was done to me.
Circumcision
- Thread starter Robert Mugabe
- Start date
It's not a difficult decision in the least.
I'm glad it was done to me.
ha, it all that's all it takes to make it to your ignore list, then I'm laughing at you.
You made my day.
The same could be said of wisdom teeth then.
And I had those pulled out after NOTHING but grief and I have not lost a moment's sleep over that either.
All in all, seems like those who are in tact are happy.Those cut seem happy. The data on ED seemed quite interesting.Israel and the blue pill. Is ed more of a problem if you are circumcised? That should be a poll. Report age
Report Strength.
Anyway, maybe it started in hot desert regions because of sand getting into their tackle, along with lack of easy access to water for long periods of time. Irate desert dwelling women telling their husbands, to wash it and get the sand out, or I ain't suckin that!
Report Strength.
Anyway, maybe it started in hot desert regions because of sand getting into their tackle, along with lack of easy access to water for long periods of time. Irate desert dwelling women telling their husbands, to wash it and get the sand out, or I ain't suckin that!
Although I am circumcised myself, I was always under the impression that we "cut" fellas were in the minority in Canada. The circumcision discussion will eventually come up amongst friends, and probably around half of my friends (who I know of) are cut while the other half are not. And nowadays, only about 30% of male babies born in Canada are circumcised, according to stats I just looked at, so it's a trend that seems to be on its way out.
I can tell you most of my friends that have boys in the last years have chosen not to get it done. Even it was tradition in their family. One friend of mine who is Jewish has two boys and wouldn't do it to them.
Yes, and I also understand many doctors today refuse to circumcise babies as well.
Coming from Southeast Asia and growing up in the States, I never knew what circumcision was. It wasn't until the fifth grade when a buddy invited me to his home after school to watch porn. It was the most awkward-ed shit ever, but it was the first time I saw a dick different from mine-well, only slightly different. The guy in the video didn't have a foreskin and it just looked weird. But hey, by that time, I was already rolling my foreskin over the head of the penis because it made masturbation feel a whole lot better; and it looked no different from a circumcised dick.
For years growing up as an uncircumcised male among other uncircumcised males, there was never, ever talks about "dirty, unwashed" dicks. Or, medical issues relating to that "extra" skin because it was never an issue. You cleaned your dick like you washed your ass, simple as that.
It wasn't til high school, college, the military and even up to now that I'm still hearing about how dirty, unclean, and diseased infested my uncut penis is supposed to be. All these "international studies" and "professional research" are always 100% of the time brought up by uncut men to let me know that their dick is so superior. It's pretty absurd. Usually when these topics comp up, to me, it's always some uncut guy trying to to defend why he was cut. What ever buddy, enjoy your dick while it works, cut or uncut.
For years growing up as an uncircumcised male among other uncircumcised males, there was never, ever talks about "dirty, unwashed" dicks. Or, medical issues relating to that "extra" skin because it was never an issue. You cleaned your dick like you washed your ass, simple as that.
It wasn't til high school, college, the military and even up to now that I'm still hearing about how dirty, unclean, and diseased infested my uncut penis is supposed to be. All these "international studies" and "professional research" are always 100% of the time brought up by uncut men to let me know that their dick is so superior. It's pretty absurd. Usually when these topics comp up, to me, it's always some uncut guy trying to to defend why he was cut. What ever buddy, enjoy your dick while it works, cut or uncut.
http://www.arclaw.org/resources/articles/circumcision-violent-ritual-search-rationale-0
Circumcision: A Violent Ritual in Search of a Rationale
By J. Steven Svoboda
The fact that infant circumcision still happens today is astounding. (This article is principally concerned with non-religious circumcision.) If we are male, when we are just hours or days old, doctors cut off the most sensitive part of our body. The operation is violent, usually performed without anesthesia, and unspeakably painful to the infant. The screams, the shaking, the frantic attempt by the newborn to escape this unexpected and unbearable pain can be truly horrible to watch—let alone experience.
Concrete medical evidence demonstrates that relative to an adult, the circumcision experience is significantly more traumatizing to an infant, who has not yet developed methods to cope with pain and whose neurological pathways are not yet fully developed. The pain permanently and irreversibly alters portions of the developing brain responsible for pain perception and memory. Researchers found that boys who had been circumcised, four to six months after their circumcisions, displayed heightened physiological pain responses to inoculative shots as compared to girls and boys who had not had the experience of circumcision. In some, the procedure also causes a broad range of documented traumas including learned helplessness, disruption of maternal-infant bonding, suppression of empathy, and damage to self-esteem and body image. Societies tend to be blind to the horrors they create themselves. And so are we regarding male circumcision.
American beliefs that circumcision destroys only a small amount tissue, and that the tissue lost is of no particular value, are not confirmed by medical research. Medical researchers recently documented that the average circumcision removes over half of the surface tissue on the shaft of the penis and many specialized nerve endings, substantially curtailing sexual sensitivity. Somewhat remarkably, given their constituencies, even the American Medical Association and the American Academies of Pediatrics have admitted that there is no justification for routine circumcision.
Circumcision as a medical (as opposed to religious) procedure was born in this country in the 19th century as a technique aimed at stopping young boys from masturbating by reducing their ability to feel genital pleasure. The pain of the procedure was explicitly cited by doctors as a “positive” byproduct of the operation. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., creator of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, said of circumcision, “The operation should be performed without anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” Many doctors also recommended circumcision of girls for similar reasons.
By reducing masturbation, male circumcision would supposedly cure a range of conditions including epilepsy, hip trouble, “imbecility,” asthma, paralysis, and alcoholism. As time went on, whenever any new disease would become a subject of social concern, circumcision would be proposed as a panacea. Examples of problems which circumcision was later claimed to cure include sexually transmitted diseases (with blacks being particularly scapegoated for circumcision), penile cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer in women, and urinary tract infections.
We should instead be guided by the sort of abhorrence we would have to a suggestion that, for example, a newborn baby girl's breast tissue be removed to guard against the high incidence of breast cancer in adults. Under standard medical practice, amputation is a treatment of last resort.
Circumcision, like any medical procedure, has complications. These occur at a rate of two to ten percent—depending on the definition of “complication”—and include a number of deaths each year. At least dozens of baby boys die in the U.S. every year from this needless procedure.
Circumcision destroys a male’s capacity for certain sexual sensations and dulls other sensations. The “triple whammy” of lost sexual sensitivity resulting from circumcision includes: loss of the foreskin nerves, damage to and exposure of the glans, and loss of skin mobility.
Men circumcised in adulthood have summed up the overall difference in sensation as similar to the contrast between seeing in color and in black and white. There is reason to think that the loss may be even greater for men circumcised as infants, as most men are. Sexual pleasure continues to be reduced as circumcised men age until, in many cases, we are left with relatively little sensation. Like many circumcised men in their late thirties or early forties, I have noticed a dramatic loss of sensitivity in recent years, due to the continuing buildup of layers of keratin over the mucous membrane which remains exposed on our penises after the foreskin is removed.
Some men who understand themselves to be harmed by their circumcisions report being depressed to the point of feeling suicidal or feeling deep rage at their parents and/or physicians. Men experiencing these profound feelings of loss and anger generally have little social support. Some men, upon revealing their distress at having lost a body part they value, have received cruel responses from their counselors.
Male and societal denial regarding harm does not negate the harm. There are at least two reasons we have not heard a great deal from men angry about or physically damaged by their circumcision. First, the millions of circumcised men who hate what was done to them do not speak out for fear of ridicule. The second reason is that most men are unaware of what they lost. It is important to remember that not only the male victims, but society as a whole is denying the existence of harm.
J. Steven Svoboda is a performance artist, a former astrophysicist, a poet, and a Harvard-educated human rights lawyer who is Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, which he founded in 1997. He likes his job a lot because he gets to do his very small part to try to make the world a slightly fairer and nicer place for all of us to live in.
Circumcision: A Violent Ritual in Search of a Rationale
By J. Steven Svoboda
The fact that infant circumcision still happens today is astounding. (This article is principally concerned with non-religious circumcision.) If we are male, when we are just hours or days old, doctors cut off the most sensitive part of our body. The operation is violent, usually performed without anesthesia, and unspeakably painful to the infant. The screams, the shaking, the frantic attempt by the newborn to escape this unexpected and unbearable pain can be truly horrible to watch—let alone experience.
Concrete medical evidence demonstrates that relative to an adult, the circumcision experience is significantly more traumatizing to an infant, who has not yet developed methods to cope with pain and whose neurological pathways are not yet fully developed. The pain permanently and irreversibly alters portions of the developing brain responsible for pain perception and memory. Researchers found that boys who had been circumcised, four to six months after their circumcisions, displayed heightened physiological pain responses to inoculative shots as compared to girls and boys who had not had the experience of circumcision. In some, the procedure also causes a broad range of documented traumas including learned helplessness, disruption of maternal-infant bonding, suppression of empathy, and damage to self-esteem and body image. Societies tend to be blind to the horrors they create themselves. And so are we regarding male circumcision.
American beliefs that circumcision destroys only a small amount tissue, and that the tissue lost is of no particular value, are not confirmed by medical research. Medical researchers recently documented that the average circumcision removes over half of the surface tissue on the shaft of the penis and many specialized nerve endings, substantially curtailing sexual sensitivity. Somewhat remarkably, given their constituencies, even the American Medical Association and the American Academies of Pediatrics have admitted that there is no justification for routine circumcision.
Circumcision as a medical (as opposed to religious) procedure was born in this country in the 19th century as a technique aimed at stopping young boys from masturbating by reducing their ability to feel genital pleasure. The pain of the procedure was explicitly cited by doctors as a “positive” byproduct of the operation. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., creator of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, said of circumcision, “The operation should be performed without anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.” Many doctors also recommended circumcision of girls for similar reasons.
By reducing masturbation, male circumcision would supposedly cure a range of conditions including epilepsy, hip trouble, “imbecility,” asthma, paralysis, and alcoholism. As time went on, whenever any new disease would become a subject of social concern, circumcision would be proposed as a panacea. Examples of problems which circumcision was later claimed to cure include sexually transmitted diseases (with blacks being particularly scapegoated for circumcision), penile cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer in women, and urinary tract infections.
We should instead be guided by the sort of abhorrence we would have to a suggestion that, for example, a newborn baby girl's breast tissue be removed to guard against the high incidence of breast cancer in adults. Under standard medical practice, amputation is a treatment of last resort.
Circumcision, like any medical procedure, has complications. These occur at a rate of two to ten percent—depending on the definition of “complication”—and include a number of deaths each year. At least dozens of baby boys die in the U.S. every year from this needless procedure.
Circumcision destroys a male’s capacity for certain sexual sensations and dulls other sensations. The “triple whammy” of lost sexual sensitivity resulting from circumcision includes: loss of the foreskin nerves, damage to and exposure of the glans, and loss of skin mobility.
Men circumcised in adulthood have summed up the overall difference in sensation as similar to the contrast between seeing in color and in black and white. There is reason to think that the loss may be even greater for men circumcised as infants, as most men are. Sexual pleasure continues to be reduced as circumcised men age until, in many cases, we are left with relatively little sensation. Like many circumcised men in their late thirties or early forties, I have noticed a dramatic loss of sensitivity in recent years, due to the continuing buildup of layers of keratin over the mucous membrane which remains exposed on our penises after the foreskin is removed.
Some men who understand themselves to be harmed by their circumcisions report being depressed to the point of feeling suicidal or feeling deep rage at their parents and/or physicians. Men experiencing these profound feelings of loss and anger generally have little social support. Some men, upon revealing their distress at having lost a body part they value, have received cruel responses from their counselors.
Male and societal denial regarding harm does not negate the harm. There are at least two reasons we have not heard a great deal from men angry about or physically damaged by their circumcision. First, the millions of circumcised men who hate what was done to them do not speak out for fear of ridicule. The second reason is that most men are unaware of what they lost. It is important to remember that not only the male victims, but society as a whole is denying the existence of harm.
J. Steven Svoboda is a performance artist, a former astrophysicist, a poet, and a Harvard-educated human rights lawyer who is Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, which he founded in 1997. He likes his job a lot because he gets to do his very small part to try to make the world a slightly fairer and nicer place for all of us to live in.
You guys do realize that both of your sides look like you are a whiny bunch of insecure men. At least from an outsider looking in.
So moving on to a great post
So moving on to a great post
Thank you for sharing this. This was a awesome post.
But you're not an outsider.
There is nothing whiny or controversial about letting people make their own choice whether to have their cock or pussy left alone. Wanting to impose circumcision on others is pathological.
If there was a tradition (religious or otherwise) to cut off a piece of labia from female infants, and you wanted to defend the practice despite knowing it has no benefit (even if you think cut off labias look aesthetically pleasing), I would think you're mentally ill.
Are circumcised men safer sex partners? Findings from the HAALSI cohort in rural South Africa
Abstract
Introduction
The real-world association between male circumcision and HIV status has important implications for policy and intervention practice. For instance, women may assume that circumcised men are safer sex partners than non-circumcised men and adjust sexual partnering and behavior according to these beliefs. Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is highly efficacious in preventing HIV acquisition in men and this biological efficacy should lead to a negative association between circumcision and HIV. However, behavioral factors such as differential selection into circumcision based on current HIV status or factors associated with future HIV status could reverse the association. Here, we examine how HIV prevalence differs by circumcision status in older adult men in a rural South African community, a non-experimental setting in a time of expanding VMMC access.
Methods
We analyzed data collected from a population-based sample of 2345 men aged 40 years and older in a rural community served by the Agincourt Health and socio-Demographic Surveillance System site in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. We describe circumcision prevalence and estimate the association between circumcision and laboratory-confirmed HIV status with log-binomial regression models.
Results
One quarter of older men reported circumcision, with slightly more initiation-based circumcisions (56%) than hospital-based circumcisions (44%). Overall, the evidence did not suggest differences in HIV prevalence between circumcised and uncircumcised men; however, those who reported hospital-based circumcision were more likely to test HIV-positive [PR (95% CI): 1.28 (1.03, 1.59)] while those who reported initiation-based circumcision were less likely to test HIV-positive [PR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.51, 0.90)]. Effects were attenuated, but not reversed after adjustment for key covariates.
Conclusions
Medically circumcised older men in a rural South African community had higher HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men, suggesting that the effect of selection into circumcision may be stronger than the biological efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV acquisition. The impression given from circumcision policy and dissemination of prior trial findings that those who are circumcised are safer sex partners may be incorrect in this age group and needs to be countered by interventions, such as educational campaigns.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...es6jyQqMihSJwI80ZVMcSLwZKbp5RxzdN3LUKSkyY79ig
Abstract
Introduction
The real-world association between male circumcision and HIV status has important implications for policy and intervention practice. For instance, women may assume that circumcised men are safer sex partners than non-circumcised men and adjust sexual partnering and behavior according to these beliefs. Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is highly efficacious in preventing HIV acquisition in men and this biological efficacy should lead to a negative association between circumcision and HIV. However, behavioral factors such as differential selection into circumcision based on current HIV status or factors associated with future HIV status could reverse the association. Here, we examine how HIV prevalence differs by circumcision status in older adult men in a rural South African community, a non-experimental setting in a time of expanding VMMC access.
Methods
We analyzed data collected from a population-based sample of 2345 men aged 40 years and older in a rural community served by the Agincourt Health and socio-Demographic Surveillance System site in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. We describe circumcision prevalence and estimate the association between circumcision and laboratory-confirmed HIV status with log-binomial regression models.
Results
One quarter of older men reported circumcision, with slightly more initiation-based circumcisions (56%) than hospital-based circumcisions (44%). Overall, the evidence did not suggest differences in HIV prevalence between circumcised and uncircumcised men; however, those who reported hospital-based circumcision were more likely to test HIV-positive [PR (95% CI): 1.28 (1.03, 1.59)] while those who reported initiation-based circumcision were less likely to test HIV-positive [PR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.51, 0.90)]. Effects were attenuated, but not reversed after adjustment for key covariates.
Conclusions
Medically circumcised older men in a rural South African community had higher HIV prevalence than uncircumcised men, suggesting that the effect of selection into circumcision may be stronger than the biological efficacy of circumcision in preventing HIV acquisition. The impression given from circumcision policy and dissemination of prior trial findings that those who are circumcised are safer sex partners may be incorrect in this age group and needs to be countered by interventions, such as educational campaigns.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...es6jyQqMihSJwI80ZVMcSLwZKbp5RxzdN3LUKSkyY79ig
circumcision and violence and repression of women are correlated
https://www.academia.edu/3086663/Ci...p_NbauYTHT1L1ZNuA9_78k3MKZkLLwISpmGIu3W6-UJvY
scroll down
https://www.academia.edu/3086663/Ci...p_NbauYTHT1L1ZNuA9_78k3MKZkLLwISpmGIu3W6-UJvY
scroll down
I am surprised that as a women, you do not see the principle of "right to your body" for infants males, who are unable to give their consent to the mutilation of their body.
I have always thought that it was right and important for women to have control of their bodies, when it comes to female genital mutilation and (in our world) more importantly female reproductive processes. Are you not in favour of women's right to use contraception and abortions?
How can you not see the linkage between male body rights and female body rights?
Especially when male circumcision can be done with consent when the child comes of age.
